Skype 2.0 Adds Video

Golygydd Max writes "Skype is showing that there's life after the eBay purchase. Techworld reports that the company has just launched the beta of Skype 2.0, having added video to its telecommunication software. The company is already lagging behind the likes of AOL and MSN in offering this, but Skype must be hoping that the size of its user base will help it - its store is to start selling videocams almost immediately." The LA Times has a review from a 2.0 beta tester, if you're interested in a hands-on look.

Comments

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Awaiting more useless rants about whether Skype is kosher or not.

Re:Oh no!

[Hatta]

Awaiting more useless rants about whether Skype is kosher or not.

What's to rant about? Unless the development process was overseen by a rabbi, it's not kosher.

Re:Oh no!

[robbkidd]

AC: Awaiting more useless rants about whether Skype is kosher or not.
Hatta: What's to rant about? Unless the development process was overseen by a rabbi, it's not kosher.

Does this mean that I am going to have to add Leviticus to my bookshelf containing CMMI and Six Sigma tomes?

Re:Oh no!

[PHPfanboy]

Let's not be silly. Leviticus is more of an accounts book. If you're talking Development Process, Genesis is surely where it's at....

Yakforfree

[joelwest]

Isn't this like yak for free previously covered by slashdot? Seems Yak had it first.

Re:Yakforfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about some yak.
Skype always provided good experience and integrated solution is always better than some third party software.

Re:Yakforfree

[AgentGibbled]

So did NetMeeting. What's your point?

Re:Yakforfree

[Jkorbel]

why yak's underlying technology is better than skype's Yak's advantage over companies like Skype is its underlying technology: Yak uses SIP, a well-defined protocol that is one of the standard protocols for developing products for 3G networks and that anyone can use and understand. Skype uses a proprietary protocol that outsiders only have a rough idea as to how it works since their security is closed source and not accessible for review - you have to trust that they are doing what they claim in terms of security. Yak sets up call routing via the YakForFree network while Skype uses the concept of supernodes, in which a Skype user's computer is used to route calls for other users; leap frogging or piggy backing a call from one user's network to another. This is not something companies want happening behind their firewall. SIP also makes it easy for us to connect to other SIP networks, which will come in handy when we want to start communicating with other SIP networks and expanding our reach of people we can talk to without the PSTN. Video interface has to be consumer friendly or else it will not be universally adopted. Yak has tried to make set up of the video phone as painless as possible for the average user, thus the video phone is laid out very much like a standard PC Media player such as WinAmp. Other VoIP services come riddled with additional bundled Spyware and Adware junk that customers do not ask for and will most likely already have. Yak's product is based on a safe/trusted and open protocol versus Skype's closed source black box security.

I love Skype

[tsa]

I live in Holland and I have a friend in Australia. I talk to him a lot via Skype. The sound quality is even better than with telephone, and it's a lot cheaper! Video will add a nice new dimension to the experience!

BTW, FP!

Re:I love Skype

[Shai-kun]

BTW, FP!

Hah you're not! :-P Which is probably good, because now your comment won't be -1'ed by FP moderations.

Anyway, I occasionally use Skype (from my linux box) to call my girlfriend, but after about half an hour or so it starts to lag so bad (up to several seconds) it's hardly usable. Of course, we can just hang up and call again, but it's still annoying.

Re:I love Skype

[TheRaven64]

I have been using Skype to call my girlfriend from my FreeBSD box while my Powerbook is in for repair. Usually we use iChat, and I've found the quality the connection to be much worse with Skype. Once it felt like it was a half-duplex connection - there would be about a second lag between my making any noise and being able to hear her again. Even on a good day there's a lot more static on the line.

Skype is also much more CPU intensive - she has a 600MHz G3, and must ensure that she quits all other running programs while she uses Skype.

Re:I love Skype

[soft_guy]

I have found that iChat AV video chats work OK about half the time if you are talking to a Mac user, but doesn't work worth a damn if you want to do video chat with a windows user.

Re:I love Skype

[mah!]

iChat AV video chats work OK about half the time if you are talking to a Mac user
One must therefore assume that the other half of the time, it works perfectly well for you (just like for everyone I know who uses iChat AV).

doesn't work worth a damn if you want to do video chat with a windows user
Maybe you ought to tell those windows users that by using AIM on their machines, it'll work quite allright with iChat AV on your end.

Re:I love Skype

[Liet Hacksor]

Actually, it works worth several damns if the w*****s user is running Trillian Pro.

Large user base?

[Jotii]

I don't see how Skype's "large user base" is going to help them to counter Skype lagging behind MSN. Aren't MSN's and ICQ's userb ases way larger?

Re:Large user base?

[Control42]

Lagging behind? I can honestly say I don't know a single person that uses MSN or ICQ (I know a few who used to use ICQ a few years ago). But I know at least 30 people who use Skype almost every day.

Re:Large user base?

[aussie_a]

I can honestly say I don't know a single person that uses MSN or ICQ (I know a few who used to use ICQ a few years ago). But I know at least 30 people who use Skype almost every day.

Yes, but I'd hardly consider the slashdot userbase (or their friends) a good sample of the internet population. Many slashdotters (no idea if you're one) zealously hate Microsoft and all of it's products. So it wouldn't be surprising to see them not using msn. However I'd hardly say that's indicative of internet users at large.

Re:Large user base?

[emmetropia]

Agreed.
I'd never tried skype before this week. I have an msn account, and and icq account. I mentioned Skype to a few friends that use MSN, and they'd never even heard of it. Both ends of the spectrum exist.

Re:Large user base?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the MSNs, AIMs, etc do have larger userbases, but those userbases aren't generally using the VoIP abilities of those programs. Nor do many of them use the video abilities. The people that are using the IMs for VoIP are also many of the same people that use the video abilities.

Now with Skype nearly everyone uses it for VoIP, the number of people using the VoIP abilities of the IMs and Skype's userbase are actually likely to be quite similar in size. Meaning Skype isn't really so far behind the game on this.

Re:Large user base?

[110010001000]

Um, MSN messenger has over 220 million users! Surely the Slashdot reality distortion shield isn't so strong that you don't realize that MSN is more popular than Skype.

Re:Large user base?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your small sample size doesn't prove anything. It is similiar to saying, "I know at least 30 people who use Skype almost every day."

Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[cybrthng]

CUSeeMe

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[i23098]

You're right. But try it today and remember how it was back then. The bandwith available today has nothing to do 28.8Kbps vs 2Mbps. Plus video compression algoritms are better today.

Computer science is like fashion. Old stuff of yesterday with a little change is the big boom of today. The little change is what makes the big difference...

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[ady1]

actually its not. skype is one of its kind which uses p2p and has encrypted communication

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[D-Cypell]

Isnt this always the way. Some pioneering company releases a technology that is far ahead of it's time but the hardware just isnt their to support it. A few years latter the technology reappears on a platform that is ready to support the concept. I can think of at least 10 or 20 examples of this. Makes you feel a bit sorry for the pioneers.

Expect a massive VR resurrgance in a few years time.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[otis wildflower]

Expect a massive VR resurrgance in a few years time.

You mean, like this?

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[Jugalator]

Now that video signals are transmitted with the P2P based traffic of Skype, nothing is stopping video phones, as in actual "regular" telephones, where you see a video of the Skype user. As in an enhanced video support for anyone using Skype. And there are already actual phones with built-in Skype support, so I don't see it as too far fetched. The implications are pretty big with Skype's landline support, usually for a cheaper cost than the cost for regular phone subscriptions.

CUSeeMe was just a network designed for slow modems separated from the rest of the non-CUSeeMe world, and it wasn't even decentralized, requiring reflectors. I wonder how well it seamlessly worked together with NAT's and firewalls as well.

I see both these apps as VoIP apps, but that's where the similarities end in both goals and technology.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[cybrthng]

People don't care how it works, just that it works. CUseeme used reflectors, broadcasting and other trickery to allow it to work fairly well on the technology we had back then.

I'm more sarcastic in the views of video over phone or net as it isn't worth it, been done before and the transport method - in this case p2p isn't revolutionary anymore. I could link up multiple reflectors and broadcast my cuseeme nearly 10 years ago. THe actual quality of the video hasn't changed worth squat in all reality since the network and technology of brandband used today still sucks as bad as it did then. (upload/outbound performance)

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[Taladar]

You forgot "...with an annoying name like Skype or Blog or Podcast..." in the "years later" part of your sentence.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[IANAAC]

Interesting. But it has nowhere near the following of Skype. Nor do people really relate it to anything in the past, such as, say, Alphaworld. Remember that? It was kind of cool technology that didn't really go anhywhere.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[sammy baby]

Wow. You have a very different memory of 1997 than I do.

In my world, current video communication systems that work over the public internet are superior by orders of magnitude to their ancestors in terms of signal quality. That's in large measure due to the better availability of bandwidth across the board (and yes: contrary to your assertion, even upstream connectivity is faster than it was back then, unless you want to compare an upstream speed of, say, 385 kbps to your old 56K. modem.)

I'm not a video expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I was peripherally involved in testing and evaluating video-via-network between 1997 and June of this year. In '97 we were swearing at CUSeeMe; in 2000, we were experimenting with video over ATM; by 2005 we were using everything from NetMeeting to dedicated Polycom systems with auto tracking cameras. Trust me, it's better now.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[Anonymous Coward]

CUSeeMe didn't do NAT well and was one of the reasons they dropped the program. uPnP these days solves that problem.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, dude. I would hope the reliability is up since then, but I totally remember using CUSeeMe to chat with friends in other places.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[Anonymous Coward]

google "CU-SeeMe VR"

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[tricorn]

Around 1993 or so, I was talking to a CS professor who was doing a lot of stuff with video and MBone. I mentioned that I was very interested in the work being done on video compression, and he scoffed a bit and said compression was totally unnecessary, as everyone would have gigabit ATM to the desktop within a few years.

Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[xoip]

Seriously, the only people who are into video calls have one hand on their hammer, the other on the keyboard. There are relatively few people who have the bandwidth to make a half decent video conference. Granted that will change.

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[xoip]

Simple fact is, video conferencing has been available to the business market(where bandwidth was not an issue) for quite some time, and has proven to be a relatively marginal business. Companies like Picturetel and Corel have lost a lot of morney chasing the wow factor of video conferencing on demand. When it comes to desktop video, MSN and Yahoo are already there...Skype subscribers will get the convenience of video but...very little potential for added revenue because people simply won't pay for anything less than 26-30 fps. Which places this squarely in the home user market.

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first groups to adopt Video calls over 3G was deaf people, this will enable them to use skype as well.

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

the only people who are into video calls have one hand on their hammer, the other on the keyboard.

Is that the bologna hammer you're referring to?

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[Hiro Antagonist]

Or, you know, use it to keep in touch with loved ones who live too far away to visit regularly -- my girlfriend lives in Japan, I live in California, and I actually went as far as to throw Windows on a spare box just for MSN video chat.

And no, it's not 'that' kind of a phone call -- her webcam and computer live in the kitchen, and her parents already have enough in the way of reasons to not like me (e.g.: I'm not Japanese).

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[Soruk]

Cinemas use 23.976fps, and TV is 25fps (50interlaced) in countries with a 50Hz mains supply.

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[carninja]

If I recall correctly, NTSC is about 29 FPS at 60Hz

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[mmagliaro]

You are really ignorant of what's possible on the internet these days. I pay $30/month for DSL service that gives me 3 Mbps down and 768kbps up. You can do REALLY good videoconferencing on a link like this. I happen to be a programmer who writes videoconferencing software. And I videoconference everyday from work to my kids at home, or to my wife at her office (or even 3 or 4-way videoconferencing in this environment). We get 352x288 resolution, and full 30 frame-per-second video. Trust me. There are lots of places where the internet is up to this now. I also conference cross-country with the same good results.

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[xoip]

You are really ignorant of what's possible on the internet these days. I pay $30/month for DSL service that gives me 3 Mbps down and 768kbps up. You can do REALLY good videoconferencing on a link like this. I happen to be a programmer who writes videoconferencing software.

There is a big difference between what is technically feasible and commercially viable.If you recieve a guaranteed bandwidth as stated for $30 you're quite fortunate. Should more people move towards video conferencing, something will have to give, price or performance.

Having burnt through several million$ at companies who developing desktop video solutions,and exstensive market research in the corporate market, person to person desktop video calls in the business market deliver no added value.
There are segments of the business market where video ads value but not necessarily in the p2p context.As far as the consumer market goes, video in MSN, Yahoo and Google have set the price point in the consumer market. The folks making money off of video are the broadband ISP's.

Re:Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth

[Soruk]

29.97fps for NTSC. (My example above was for PAL/SECAM.)

bandwidth

[brenddie]

Ill love to give it try and see how sync'ed is voice and video

Demand for the video phone?

[aussie_a]

The video phone has been around for some time now, although I don't know the price of it so that may have been responsible for it not being adopted, are video phones really wanted? They've never taken off for the normal phone, will they suddenly take off for VoIP?

I can't see it myself. Plenty of programs have supported webcams, but in my experience most people don't use them, only a very small minority. So why is everyone clamouring to add this? Is it merely to say "look. We've got a new widget!"? Or is there truly demand for this, that I'm just ignorant of?

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, I think there is very little demand for video phone. Video requires too much attention. When people are on the phone, they are usually doing something else. Watching TV, on the computer, dishes, something... Nobody wants to spend time on the phone and see someone. Granted, there are uses such as people who never get to see the people on the other end. But I don't think that actually seeing people adds anything to the whole phone experience.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[displague]

It's just not made easy enough for the average home user. If all new laptops and monitors had a webcam and microphone built into the display and the software (MSN Messenger, AIM, Skype whatever) that is preinstalled can bust through firewalls (upnp), then I think adoption would be much greater.

I'm hoping that Vonage, Packet8, and other VoIP folks can start using a video standard rather than their own concoctions.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there will be only a small number of Skype users who take advantage of this feature. But I think there will be a lot of people looking at Skype's features who will say to themselves, "I might use that" when they see the video capability, and Skype simply doesn't want to give those people a reason to go to a competitor.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[JPriest]

Plenty of IM clients have supported audio too but until Skype nobody ever really used it.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[sbryant]

You don't have kids, do you? If you don't live so close to your parents, you'll find yourself the "videophone" so they can see their grandchildren. Then, once you have it anyway, it's nice to be able to see friends and relatives. Usage depends on how good (smooth) the implementation is. It's not a must-have, but it does grow on you.

I've been using the free video plugin for Skype for quite a while now. It wasn't bad, but it did go a little weird every now and then (lost the camera etc). I'm hoping that the integrated version will be better.

-- Steve

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[wolf31o2]

You're missing the whole point of this great addition to Skype... Cam Whores...

Why else does anyone need to see the person on the other end than to see them getting naked?

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[david.heyman]

Nailed it right on the head!

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[TheRaven64]

iChat AV has video conferencing. My mobile 'phone has video calling. Prior to this, I have used more complicated video conferencing solutions. Making a video call with iChat is as simple as clicking on the camera icon next to someone's name. Making a video call with my 'phone is as simple as an audio call. I have never used either of these features, because they don't add anything useful. Being in the same room as someone is much better being on the telephone to them[1], but a video call is not often better than an audio call. Being able to share a screen (e.g. for a presentation or a demo) is useful, and having a speaker and decent microphone so you can walk around without being tied to a headset are both useful, but video always strikes me as a gimmic.

[1] Well, I know a few geeks who are exceptions to this - especially if you are downwind of them.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[itscolduphere]

With almost every IM client for Windows offering video, I imagine there must be some demand for it. Mostly families that are, for whatever reason, seperated...kids off at college talking to parents, soldiers in Iraq talking to wives, whatever. I'll be using it because I'll be going to school 2 hours away from my wife, and during the week it isn't feasible to drive home and back...the occasional video chat with the wife will be nice. If it was not expensive, I'd probably spring for a video phone...but it'd have to be pretty cheap to keep me from just using the computer.

The biggest problem I've found is finding a client that is cross compatible between Windows and OSX (I've got a Mac, the wife doesn't)...I believe Yahoo does, but Yahoo also sucks. MSN and AOL do not, nor does (to my knowledge) ICQ.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[moro_666]

Will sending the tone signal hang up the feds that are watching the pr0n cam whores as they tap your skype/camphone/ ???

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[ablomen.nl]

Well atleast here in holland, in the age group of about 12 to 20, a big percentage of people use the video chat function on msn. So there is atleast some kind of future for it, but like they said in other posts, the averadge person hasn't got an internet connection fast enough.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[TechnoGuyRob]

It HAS been adopted. In Japan at least. Most people in Japan have videophones now. We Americans are just unwilling to adopt to new technology. ("I don't need any video--I got me good ol' phone righ' here")

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[jrumney]

Most people? Noone I know in Japan has a videophone (except for the occasional cellphone, but none of them ever use it for a videophone, just for shooting videos). They have been around since the late eighties though, I remember going into an NTT office in 1988 and seeing one on every desk.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

is there truly demand for this, that I'm just ignorant of

Well, this feature is great news for Mac users who want to do video chat. Now we don't have to open multiple IM clients to do a video conversation with people in abroad. Yahoo messenger for Mac has video capability but no voice. There is also Squidcam but its not even closer to the popularity of Skype. Skype rocks man !

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[steveo777]

True story. I was in my friends' dorm about three years ago. I was chilling with on of them talking about his latest "physics" experement (had something to do with a go-kart and a '91 Honda 600cc crotch rocket engine, IIRC). We heard this noise coming from the absent roommate's speakers. At first I ignored it, but it got kind of annoying after a minute. I assumed it was a screen saver or something, so I moved his mouse around and as the screen returned, there on his AOL client was some kid completely naked masturbating like he'd never noticed his penis before and just saw two chicks making out. Guy was staring into the webcam. It took me a second to figure it out, it's not something you'd really ever be prepared for. I looked into the camera and a small look of confusion came over the lude fellow, and he quickly reached for the keyboard and was not heard from again.

Anyway, I mentioned it to the computer's owner and as it turns out, apparently this guy was his friends "roommate" at a different college and thought that he was screwing with the roommate's girlfriend. Don't know why he'd be embarassed if he was willing to wack it in front of his roommates girlfriend, but whatever.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[fayd]

You don't have kids, do you?

You realize this is slashdot ... right?

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[MacJedi]

FYI, the windows AIM client and the MacOS iChat client at one point could do cross-platform video, but I haven't been able to get it to work recently and I'm not sure if that is due to firewall weirdness or if Apple or AOL broke the interoperability recently.

The only other option I know of is MSN using the cross-platform Mercury client. It's Java and buggy and the video quality is nothing compared to iChat, but it works.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[PsiPsiStar]

There is certainly a demand for good p2p video to support live distance learning.

Imagine the cost savings of conducting training online as opposed to flying a few executives to a central location to get trained.

Such training would need to be supplimented by other resources, but as someone who has done a lot of e-learning and technical training, I can tell you I've been specifically asked for technology such as this to support some of our trainers.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[ejp1082]

Personally, I'm currently separated from my SO by 3,000 miles or so - it's damn nice to be able to be able to not just talk, but actually see her at night in the long periods between actually being together.

I think there's some demand for it - the psychological assurance of actually seeing a distant loved one (not just talking) shouldn't be underestimated.

How does it perform on Linux?

[bogaboga]

I am no Skype user but would like to know how Skype is doing on the Linux platform. I know they had a QT/KDE client. Any reviews?

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[fluch]

Works nice on Debian unstable... :-)

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[deviantphil]

As someone else said...it works nice on Debian/Unstable...but I had to make a tweaked/faked package due to dependancy problems. Skype depends on a package that has another name under Debian...*sighs*

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[tsetem]

It works ok, but has some oddities:

1) Only uses OSS, not Alsa. So it's not always happy sharing the sound device. (You can use OSS emulation, but still, not quite that happy)
2) Occaisionally forgets my configuration and won't let me log in. I've seen posts, that say the solution is to whack your .skype config directory. Kind of annoying, but once I do that, it's happy and lets me reconnect.

I'd love to see Skype 2.0 working under Linux, but even more importantly, I'd love to see an Alsa version and see if my experience is better.

My biggest gripe is that I use it to talk to my brother when gaming (instead of Teamspeak). For the whole once a week we game, it's fine. But under Linux, I can't run my game & talk on Skype. So I've got to boot into Windows to game.

But if you want to use skype to only talk, and not game, it's certainly fine for that.

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[hanavi]

i occasionally use the stable linux version of skype. It works well, but it seems that when skype is running some other stuff slows down, but other than that, i was extremely impressed with the quality in both windows and linux.

As for the video side of things... I kinda skimmed it doesn't look like they are saying one way or another on whether or not they will continue to support linux with this new push for video. I really hope they do. I haven't found a single decent video client that I can get installed on my linux box. I think maybe CUSeeMe may work(?), but i cant justify it right now.. and gnomemeeting has worked in the past, but i cant get it installed on my slackware installation with KDE. Theoretcially i might be able to get it if I wanted to invest that kind of time to find the the 1200 akward dependancies that I have been having a hard time with, but i just isn't worth it right now...

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[Gherikill]

Works perfectly for SUSE, they even have RPMs built for a lot of popular distros.

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[Pastis]

With regard to voice quality, don't expect to run skype well on a 400 Mhz. I even had quality problems with a 750Mhz machine. At least that's not my experience.

Gnomemeeting is much less resource hungry.

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does only work on i386 compatible distributions.
So no amd64 and no powerpc.. . Otherwise ok.

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[LnxAddct]

Works perfectly under Fedora Core 4, I'm just curious to see if Skype 2.0 for Linux will have video support, that'd be great.
Regards,
Steve

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

esddsp `which skype` is a solution.

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use skype to talk to people while I play nwn (in linux). The solution is to enable the alsa software mixer.

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[arnott]

Skype does work using ALSA driver, check this: http://forum.skype.com/viewtopic.php?p=148980

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's working fine on my Gentoo AMD 64 distro

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[steevc]

I've been using it for a while on Ubuntu. It works pretty well, but I do have general issues with multiple programs using sound.

The Linux version has had contact groups for ages, but Windows has only just got it with this beta. It works differently though. The Linux one is more like MSN/Jabber (expand group to see contacts). The Windows one has a list of groups at the top that you can select from.

I've got some of the family using Skype just because it's simple to use and cross-platform even if it isn't open.

Re:How does it perform on Linux?

[steevc]

I meant to add that the Windows grouping allows someone to be in more than one group. I need to check how that they will appear in Linux as the Windows client picked up my existing groups.

A couple of features have been lost in this beta. You can't close the Skype window by double clicking the tooltray icon and the scroll wheel does not move through contacts as before.

Bout Time

[n00tz]

Too bad I've already found another service for my sparse webcam use (Jabber).. If they were here with video about 6 months ago they might have had a continued user... but once Google Talk came out, Skype lost me completely.

eBay made a bad investment.

gimme gimme gimme

[DaPoulpe]

A multi-platform Video Skype and you got yourself something way cooler than Msn nor Yahoo Messenger largest user base or not.

Re:gimme gimme gimme

[anethema]

While skype IS multiplatform and i'm happy for it since i use it daily....their linux client is no where near the level of their windows client in some respects.

I have a feeling we wont see video on the linux client for a while.

fast

[distantbody]

Finally! now i can utilise by blistering 32K connection :P

Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the guys with one hand on their hammer would disagree with you calling their pasttime a waste of bandwith.

if its any good, ill change to skype

[Anonymous Coward]

the lack of cross-platform video has been annoying. i have used iChatAV with my mac-friends. windows-users have AIM, it works in video-mode with iChat. but there hasnt been anything for linux that works with those.

now i can finally use only one program with all my friends and on all of my platforms (mac/lin). way to go!

Does it work with 3G phones ?

[terminal.dk]

Unless it works with the 3G video phones all kids between 15 and 25 years old are buying these day, then it is just 15 year old tech in new cans.

Full skype-in / skype-out to 3G phone would be the ting to move it to the next level.

(I live in Denmark)

Re:Does it work with 3G phones ?

[Tony Hoyle]

I don't see 15 years olds actually *using* video phones though.. they like to own them because it's the latest cool item.

3G Video has been widely available for 2-3 years and it's not exactly taken the world by storm... I don't see this doing it either. It seems most people don't *want* video, despite the way various companies keep trying to push it as the 'next big thing'.

Skype line quality

[edxwelch]

Skype doesn't work nearly as well as they claim it does. There is always a time lag effect. The person on the other end of the line only hears what you have said after a certain delay. The amount of time lag depends on what day you call.. there are good Skype days and bad Skype days. On good Skype days the time lag can be so small that you hardly notice and it's nearly as good as a normal telephone line (although still both people won't be able to talk at the same time). On bad Skype days it's nearly impossible to have a conversation - better off just hanging up and trying on a different day. Bad Skype days usually happen when the internet is going very slow.

Re:Skype line quality

[tsa]

I never had a bad Skype day. In my experience the quality depends mostly on the equipment used and how far the microphone is placed from the speakers. I must say I only skype with people that also use a computer though, so no telephone.

Re:Skype line quality

[SpooForBrains]

"the internet is going very slow"

Seriously, man, didn't you get the email about the internet cleaning days?

Re:Skype line quality

[ScuxxletButt]

I talk to my friends in Finland all the time using SkypeIn and SkypeOut and have no more delay that I would with a regular cell phone. In fact the last time I was in Helsinki, I called one of my friends on her cell phone who was sitting across the table from me at an internet cafe and the delay was almost non-existant.

Re:Skype line quality

[bhima]

I routinely experience these sort of problems and it seems worse with SkypeIn or SkypeOut than Skype to Skype. It also is significantly worse with the Mac or Linux client.

Often it helps to force Skype to re-figure out its routing... although I don't remember how to do it off the top of my head.

Re:Skype line quality

[bafio]

Really? And the bad days when the internet connection is broken, Skype doesn't even allow you to call at all! How bad...

Re:Skype line quality

[EulerX07]

That's your opinion. I've spent hundreds of hours on skype (mainly gaming) in the last year, sometimes in 3-man conference and lag has never been an issue. Then again I'm on a very good cable 5.1 Mbps cable modem connection with 50ms latencies to the servers I play on.

Maybe the problem is your internet access/provider, and not skype.

Re:Skype line quality

[Breakfast Pants]

Side-note: does anyone know what topology skype uses for conference calls? I know they all have to make tradeoffs between bandwidth and latency and I was just wondering what it used.

Re:Skype line quality

[slazzy]

I have had this same problem as well. At the time I also had a primus VOIP phone connected to the same Cable modem, and it had the same problem... I switched to my backup ADSL line and both VOIP hardward and skype worked fine.

I'm pretty sure this is ISP related

Re:Skype line quality

[StikyPad]

That almost as if the information is traveling along an infrastructure of some sort rather than just teleporting...

Re:Skype line quality

[tricorn]

I've found it works a lot better talking to my sister in England than to my parents in New York (I'm in Illinois). Echo cancellation is also almost non-existent - with iChat, I can talk just fine in speaker-phone-mode (both my sister and dad have iMacs with built-in microphones). With Skype, I can't see using it unless both sides have headsets.

I did find using Skype to talk to toll-free numbers in England to be extremely helpful, though!

Re:Skype line quality

[IanLilly]

I live & work in Malaysia, my family is in Sydney, Australia. I use Skype frequently to speak to them and others around ANZ & SE Asia. I have Linksys router/NATs at each location (3) as do many of my friends. This is what works for us. Fire up video using MSN or Yahoo - when running via NAT you have to do this TWICE, once from each side with each side also accepting the session. Fire up Skype and call the person you're looking at and "Chat"ting to. Works a treat, no perceptible lag. Cameras - 1 Creative Notebook Cam, bluetooth mic/speaker (SonyEricsson) 1 Creative webcam, separate mic, leftover from a laptop of years past. 1 Logitech N4000 or somesuch camera & mic The native Audio won't work thru the NAT without opening so many ports up that it defeats the purposes of having a NAT. I have experienced a lot of lag when using SkypeOut.

Skype-integrated eBay?

[digitaldc]

Since eBay now owns Skype, maybe they should integrate this video technology into eBay so you can get a video of what you are purchasing.

This would help when buying big-ticket items on eBay. The ability to view a house or piece of property on video would probably increase the interest and sales.

Re:Skype-integrated eBay?

[Casca]

WTF does Skype video have to do with someone wanting to see a video of something they are buying? Absolutely nothing, thats what. Are you really suggesting that people should have live video feeds attached to an ebay auction for a car or a house or whatever? Sheesh.

Re:Skype-integrated eBay?

[zenslug]

Are you really suggesting that people should have live video feeds attached to an ebay auction for a car or a house or whatever?

Yes. That would make sense. 24/7 video feed? Probably a waste. A live video feed during the last hour of a car/house sale? Probably worth it to buy a $50 camera and install the free video Skype when selling something worth thousands of $$$.

Re:Skype-integrated eBay?

[Casca]

What would a live video feed for an ebay auction of a car or house provide the buyer that they couldn't get from stills or a canned video linked to in the auction? The video quality will be utter crap compared to the other methods you could use. Aside from some sort of validation that the item still exists in the form the seller originally marketed, I just don't see it. Even that validation would be trivial to fake and difficult to certify.

Re:Skype-integrated eBay?

[wombert]

Yeah, and watch the bids die off as soon as your neighbor walks out in his bathrobe to get his paper....

I'll wait for SIP

[jemejones]

I've setup an Asterisk server and gotten pretty good audio quality over SIP. A bonus is there are already a variety of SIP soft phones, some open, others not, available for most platforms. I don't know if SIP currently supports video, but I wouldn't expect it to be too long before it does. I'll wait for video over SIP to take off. Heck, I don't even have a webcam....

Re:I'll wait for SIP

[Tony Hoyle]

Yes it does. SIP is just a session protocol, you can send anything over it.

Asterisk also supports video over SIP and has done for years. There just aren't many phones about that do it (I think cisco do one).

Re:I'll wait for SIP

[beasstman]

There are a large number of SIP endpoints that support Video (as an earlier poster said, SIP, is simply an open, IETF standard to set up the session for media)

Checkout eyeball.com or counterpath.com -- both make (commercially) SIP soft devices that support video.

Re:I'll wait for SIP

[jesup2]

SIP works well with video; there are many SIP videophones such as the Motorola Ojo. Skype uses On2's VP6 video codec; this is better than older videophones/webcam H.263+, but not as good as Ojo's and Apple iChatAV's H.264. (Ojo is 30fps with no delay, and you don't need to be at your computer to use it.)

I wonder if Skype is still proxying all that video data through relays on publicly-accessible machines. If video gets used much, this could really hurt overall Skype network performance and add strain/overhead/etc to the users who are on open connections.

:%s/sk/h/g

[chunews]

How about a single, open standards base that allows any platform to make themselves way cooler than MSN, Yahoo, AOL, or Google.

Oh wait, that's called XMPP, SIP, and H.232 technologies.

See: http://www.tipic.com/taxonomy/view/or/29

Re::%s/sk/h/g

[DaPoulpe]

Don't get me wrong I'm no Skype fanboy.

I'd love to use some free software project that allows me to hear & see my friends regardless of their OS, that would be for the best.

But at the same time people have already at least a msn and a skype/yahoo/aol/talk account, can't see them opening another one just "for the geek" (aka me)..

Skype is widespread and close to have fully working clients on the big three Windows/Linux/OSX, maybe not the best but could it be good enough ?

Comparison

[BobKagy]

I've forgotten my LA Times log-in so I haven't read that review. But I'm interested in what others are using for video-conferencing, as I hope to set up several PCs this Christmas so my daughter can see her grandparents more often. All users involved will be pretty unsophisticated.

I bought Logitech webcams, but they don't include video conferencing software. Instead they have a link to Logitech's $x/month service. I don't have any idea why such a service is better than a direct connection, so I'm trying to avoid that approach. (There are several others.)

I plan to trial a few options with my brother later this month, and am interested in any suggestions.

The big player seems to be MSN. AOL just added video, and I couldn't tell from their pages if it included sync'd audio. Yahoo also has some sketchy details. At the moment this seems best, but I'm worried about IM spam & virii. I assume it can be avoided, but I don't know how many options need set to secure the client.

I've also planned to try Skype + Festoon. No idea how this compares with the Skype + Video announced here.

I've run accross ineen which worked really well, but had really tiny video. Maybe that's all I can expect from a cable modem.

Another poster mentioned yak for free, whose client looks surprisingly similar to ineen. Even the video size.

Any experiences doing video conferencing over cable modems, suggestions of other things to try?

Re:Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the LA Times article, the video quality on Skype 2.0 is supposed to be quite good, but not quite as good as iChat AV for mac. (tip, copy/paste the link into google, click the "if the url is valid..." link, and you can view the article without logging in. works for nytimes as well.)

Re:Comparison

[jrumney]

I tried Festoon back when it was vSkype (I guess Skype made them change their name when they decided to do video themselves). It looked OK, but didn't support my video camera as the input device. Spontania did support it, so I set my parents in law up with that and a webcam so they can see their grandchild as I follow him around the room with the camcorder. It would be nice to have an integrated solution as we sometimes have difficulties with spontania not picking up the call from skype, which means 10 minutes of trying to talk my in-laws through the steps of manually getting them connected before we can get down to business.

Re:Comparison

[aug24]

I've forgotten my LA Times log-in

Try fuckthis/fuckthis or in this case fuckthis@fuckthis.com/fuckthis

I create it whenever I find it doesn't exist. Apparently so do lots of other people ;-)

Join the fuckthis-membership meme!

Justin.

Re:Comparison

[geekpaddr]

Use http://www.bugmenot.com/ for all your free site login needs.

Re:Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

try wigiwigi video plug in that works with all IM software. it has the best synchornization.

512 kBit/s bandwith?

[raudi]

On the german newsticker http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/66829 it was stated that a "ADSL-Line with 512 kBit/s" is needed. everybody is wondering if they mean a ADSL with 512kBit/s downstream or if they realy need a bandwith of 512kBit/s. any clues? any official information on what bandwith is needed? anybody already tested it? cheers raudi

Re:512 kBit/s bandwith?

[RealNecator]

Well ... if you need 512kbit down (the weakest assumption) ... what do you think where these 512kbit are comming from? Right, frome the 512kbit upstream from your buddy. Well and vice versa.

So ... for perfect quality it is at least a 512/512 ADSL needed ... or better (which can then be a eg. 6Mbit/512kbit) ... ... so not too hard to figure out, or?

Re:512 kBit/s bandwith?

[raudi]

It's hard to find anybody not having 512kbps *downstream* but there are a lot that do not have 512kbps *upstream* at least here in switzerland. so i'm still wondering: - if there is an official information on the needed bandwith - if they really need 512kbps

Re:512 kBit/s bandwith?

[raudi]

sure, upstream=downstream if nothing is magically added or (not so magically) lost. but you realy do think they need 512kbps? that seems a lot to me. i doubt that the mayority of skype users has 512kbps upstream well i guess i'll hove to try it myself...

Re:512 kBit/s bandwith?

[RealNecator]

On the other Hand, the video transmitted is 320x240 at 16fps ... quite a lot. Raw Data is about 2Mbyte/s ... so even after compression it reamains a lot (and it has to be a online-compression ... so you can't squeeze the very last bit out of it).

But on the other hand, 512kbit is said to be the maximum required, bt scales down to what is available ... so I'm sure it will also work with a lower bandwith.
(If not, well ... not many will be able to use it ;-))

Re:512 kBit/s bandwith?

[raudi]

Where did you get the information that it's 320x240@16fps? even with this resolution 512kbps is not really fantastic, assuming that most pixels will stay the same from one image to the next...

Re:512 kBit/s bandwith?

[RealNecator]

Got it from heise ;-)

You need at least a compression ratio of 1:40. Doable, yes, definitly. The lower the bandwith, the higher compression you need ... and of course the higher the visual distortion (or the needed processing-power).

So ... 512 upstream look quite reasonable to me ... for a high-quality video and audio stream.

Re:512 kBit/s bandwith?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the video compression is On2's VP7. Does anybody know about VP7 & what kind of video quality it produces at 512k?

its too much generalization

[ady1]

As I Live in an underdeveloped county and have relatives abroad so I know that a very good portion of the video conferencing is used by parted families

Re:its too much generalization

[xoip]

Very good point and perhaps the fact that Skype has taken a more International approach will generate more users than some of the others.

Re:its too much generalization

[xtracto]

Me too.

I am from Mexico and currently living in UK. Every sunday, my mom and I talk in Skype. I find the video thing nice. As I would have the chance to see her, and to see my little poochies (3 dogs) too. And also show my family how are things here in the overpriced market paradise land.

Re:its too much generalization

[TheSync]

My relatives in El Salvador are just getting into AIM, it is very cool!

Skype Pron!

[frinkacheese]

Cool, skype cams in young swedish blond's bedrooms!
I can't wait till skype approaches the depths of depravity that every other camera enabled conf system resides in.

Is it just me or is the net only used for pron?

Hmm, nope it's not just me, the net is in fact the largest pron distribution machine in the world.

Been done before?

[XMilkProject]

Alot of posts mention that this isn't exactly a new technology. Well of course that is true, people have been successfully using video chat for years, but I think what is important is that Skype makes this process simple and more accessible to the masses.

Of course MacOsX has some very easy to use video chat abilities, but Skype takes this even further by providing SDK/API for developers to build off of their technology.

Personally I'll most likely keep using other software packages, but I am very happy to see this technology becoming more mainstream, it is likely to help save people (and perhaps businesses) alot of time and money as these things work better and cost less.

beta for linux?

[serverleader]

is there a beta for linux with video?? I hope it integrates ALSA sound this time ....

Re:beta for linux?

[tehmorph]

Probably. From my personal experience sound is a nightmare to get working on Linux, but then i've never really needed it- I use Linux for servers and WinXP on my main machine...

Mac (and Linux) users

[titten]

Finally, a piece of software that delivers video chat to both Mac, Linux and Windows users.
I'm so tired of trying out stinking Messenger clones on my Mac that barely works, since Microsoft has decided not to include video in Messenger for Mac.

I'm all for open standards, but Skype delivers to my needs.
Thank you Skype. (Now all you have to do is make the new beta available for my precious PowerBook.)

Re:Mac (and Linux) users

[Tony Hoyle]

Skype 2.0 is not currently available for mac and linux.

Since the version 1 skype never came out of beta for linux it's debatable whether there will *ever* be a linux version.

Anyway it's hardly the first cross platform video communication program - there are literally hundreds of the damned things.

Re:Mac (and Linux) users

[bhima]

As a Mac and Skype user I have to disagree. The Mac version of Skype has always lagged behind the Windows version and it sucks egregiously in strange and mysterious ways. So much so I have an old laptop running WinXP and Skype is the *only* thing I use it for.

Re:Mac (and Linux) users

[el_womble]

I expect Mac and Linux support are a bit of a way off, but after seeing Jake2, my faith in Java has been renewed... why not create a Java client?

Instant cross-platformy goodness (all be it wrapped in proprietary Sun licence badness)

If they can render Quake 2 at 260 fps then video at 15fps has got to be easy... doesn't it? Just make sure its rendered in jogl and joal rather than evil Swing. The one sticking point I can see is getting the data from the camera in Java... any thoughts?

Re:Mac (and Linux) users

[Matlo]

Actually, there is this java program Mercury that allows video chat and that is compatible with MSN messenger clients. Pretty neat, it works on Linux and Windows.

http://www.mercury.to/

Re:Mac (and Linux) users

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you're looking for is "albeit".

uPNP

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitpicking - uPNP is used by messaging software to bust through NAT, not Firewalls.

Back to the Skype w/ Video thing. Just what we need, another messaging client with a video chat implamentation that isn't inter-operable with other networks. Bonus points if they rolled their own video codec based on MPEG4 but with just enough differences to break any other implementation.

I'm hoping that Vonage, Packet8, and other VoIP folks can start using a video standard rather than their own concoctions.

Amen

Most important...

[b0bby]

I've been waiting for this, simply because I haven't found a good way for two people behind NAT to do video chat without some subscription fee. The NAT traversal in Skype seems to me to be the kicker, because it lets you connect easily without forwarding ports. Am I just an idiot, and there are other video chat programs that do this for free between say, XP & 2000 machines?

Re:Most important...

[TheSync]

There is the video and audio chat in Yahoo Internet Messenger (which I have used for chats between the US and Baghdad), and also there is video in AIM (but only for Windows XP). I'm currently watching my puppies who are at home from work right now using Yahoo Internet Messenger.

Re:Most important...

[Albanach]

I'm currently watching my puppies who are at home from work right now

You send your puppies to work?

Re:Most important...

[StikyPad]

MSN Messenger... Some people will laugh, but I've never had a problem with it traversing my LAN, and the video quality is on par with anything else I've seen.. the camera seems to be the limiting factor. When are they going to make some decent high resolution cameras that can run at more than 1 frame per shutterbutton click? (Meaning I'd like either my digital camera to be usable as a webcam, or my webcam to get on par with my digital camera quality).

Finally out

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been a press release about the CEO testing Video Skype on a Lufthansa flight since about January 2005. Well finally the release is available.

Re:Finally out

[jrumney]

I was under the impression when I first read that press release he was trying out vSkype (now Festoon).

Please fix linux support first

[geirt]

I have been using skype on linux for a while now, but the Linux support is getting worse.

Skype does not support ALSA, causing all kinds of weird problems. There is a bug in skype that require a restart after any voice call (it does not close /dev/dsp after use). These problems should have been fixed a long time ago.

I am actively searching for a better solution.

Re:Please fix linux support first

[adyus]

Perhaps Gizmo?

Finally...

[null-sRc]

... I can see the face of the person that's calling me at 4:00am in the morning from Egypt... just to see the expression on their face as they see I'm not a horney little girl but instead an angry half naked hairey man.

Body language

[CrazedWalrus]

I think there's a lot to be said for being able to see facial expressions when speaking with someone, and it also adds visual cues that can help if someone has a heavy accent.

Also, I generally work in large multinational corporations, and it would be nice to know what the person on the other end of the line looks like. I think visual helps build relationships because it makes the other person seem more human.

At my last job, we used to hold occasional team meetings in a video conference room, which everyone enjoyed (when the farking thing worked right). Sometimes it's nice to hear a smile *and* see it.

Re:Large userb ase?

[Bonewalker]

Aren't MSN's and ICQ's userb ases way larger?

Now just what does the size of their posterior have to do with anything? I swear, you /. geeks track the strangest demographics.

Skype is easy for mom and my friends

[Antiocheian]

In a response to the earlier poster, (It's just not made easy enough for the average home user) and your point (uPNP is used by messaging software) -- Skype is so successful because it doesn't need uPNP to bypass NAT and firewalls and therefore it is so easy to use by the average home user who, most certainly, doesn't have the knowledge to configure either or a fully uPNP enabled system.

I've been using Skype for quite a long and before that I was using SpeakFreely. I love SpeakFreely, but I gave up on it on the fact that I was the only one (of a long list of friends & relatives with whom I speak over the internet) who knew how to use it and how to open ports to use it.

The Skype developers have drawn their experience in firewall bypassing by earlier endeavors in p2p technology. This is exactly why Skype has succeeded where MSN & Yahoo messengers have failed.

"Skype Out" price gouging

[Bombula]

Skype is a godsend for those of us living in developing countries, since Skype Out enables users to call regular telephones. The rates are dependent on the destination of the call, not the origin - an interesting (and logical) twist on normal telecom rates thanks to internet telephony. Now the rates aren't bad if you're calling a western country - less than 2 cents a minute to call the states, for example - but the rates are still brutal when calling non-western countries. For example, I am living in the Middle East and calling Dubai (which is right next door) costs 22 cents a minute, about 15 times more than calling the states. And the UAE is essentially a fully developed country. I shudder to think what it would cost to call Nigeria or Bangladesh.

This is a shame, in my opinion, because it quashes the internet's promise to break the stranglehold that the regular/government telecoms have over citizens. The ISPs in some countries in this region, for example, have skype's website blocked specifically to prevent people from paying the normal $2.50+/minute rates to call Europe or the states.

If technology is going to fulfill its promise to lift the burden off of those struggling in developing countries, companies like Skype would do well to do a better job of leveling the playing field - price differentials of a factor of 15 just seem downright unfair.

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[Anonymous Coward]

he rates are dependent on the destination of the call, not the origin - an interesting (and logical) twist on normal telecom rates thanks to internet telephony.

That's exactly how rates are charged in the US and Europe. Calling one country may be considerably dearer than calling another. I fail to see the "twist" here?

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[Hiro Antagonist]

Is it cheaper than a normal phone call?

For me, I call Japan a lot, and while it's more expensive than the states, I know that this is because the Japanese government levies all kinds of taxes -- things like, calling a normal phone line has the same cost as calling a U.S. phone, but calling a Japanese mobile costs almost $0.14 USD per minute!

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[Bombula]

To clarify: the twist is that the rates are fixed according to destination, not origin of the call. So calling New York with Skype will cost 1.7 cents per minute, whether you skype from New Jersey or from Tierra Del Fuego. Normal long distance rates are dependent on where you are calling from, as well as where you are calling to. So a normal call from New Jersey to New York maybe be a few pennies a minute, but a normal call from Tierra Del Fuego to New York would more expensive.

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[LittleStone]

Price gouging? Who rated it informative?

It isn't free to connect to the local POTS. Skype has no choice but paying Etisalat, considered as the monopoly of telecommunication in UAE. Dailaround market is quite competitive, yet SkypeOut's price to UAE is lower than many of the dailaround offering. Price gouging?

That's not price gouging by Skype. If it's anything, it's Etisalat exercising it's monopoly power. Skype is in no position to level the playing field, other than letting you have free Skype-Skype calls (if the local ISP monopoly has not block Skype traffic yet.) What, you want Skype to do money losing business, such to kill the government established monopoly for you?

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[mah!]

calling a normal phone line has the same cost as calling a U.S. phone, but calling a Japanese mobile costs almost $0.14 USD per minute

This is likely for the same reason why calling a mobile phone most anywhere in the world (except in Norht America and 1-2 other countries) costs more than calling a landline:
In Norht America, every mobile phone user is charged for every incoming call's airtime, an unimaginable concept most everywhere else (imagine having to pay for incoming long-distance calls to your home phone number, for example...)
Everywhere else, the caller pays, just like for long distance. So when you call a mobile phone in Japan, you're probably simply paying for the receiving end's airtime cost to which they incur because of your calling them.

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[burbilog]

In Norht America, every mobile phone user is charged for every incoming call's airtime, an unimaginable concept most everywhere else (imagine having to pay for incoming long-distance calls to your home phone number, for example...)

Well, you can see the same things in Russia -- some rate plans charge mobile user, but other plans (with higher monthly pay) provide incoming calls for free. Usually Russian mobile providers offer "free incoming calls" plans. So what's the problem if you pay for incoming calls, but pay almost nothing monthly or pay fixed sum every month and have incoming calls for free?

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[mah!]

So what's the problem if you pay for incoming calls, but pay almost nothing monthly or pay fixed sum every month and have incoming calls for free?

The problem is when you have no choice and you have to pay incoming calls no matter what: they lock you in for 1 or 2 years (big penalty if you decide to terminate the contract early) and you every single one of them charges you for incoming calls.
And I still haven't found a place where you have to pay for incoming long distance, as a comparison. Why people put up and do so with mobile phones... well, there's no choice: that's how "free market" with mobile phone providers works in N.A.

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[tricorn]

The psychology is different. I've heard people from other countries explain that people who call them have to pay because "it is a convenience for them to be able to reach me when I would otherwise not be available". Here, the thinking is that it is a convenience to ME that I can be away from a land line and people can still reach me. If you don't want to talk to the person, don't answer and you don't get charged anything.

There's also the factor that there's no way to tell if a phone number is a mobile - even more so now with number portability (before, you COULD find out if you looked up the area code + prefix, if you knew how). Unless I always get an intercept telling me how much I'm going to pay, it just wouldn't fly. There are still people upset that you no longer have to dial 1 to go long distance in the same area code.

Besides, I'm never going to return a call made from a mobile if I have to pay the airtime.

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[mah!]

Here, the thinking is that it is a convenience to ME that I can be away from a land line and people can still reach me. If you don't want to talk to the person, don't answer and you don't get charged anything.
But the same logic could be applied to long-distance calls: it's a convenience to ME that I can be geographically distant from someone and they can still reach me... somehow it does not sound convincing either way.

There's also the factor that there's no way to tell if a phone number is a mobile
This is a main point which I must concede. However, AFAIK in places where the caller always pays for the call, you can prefix a special number in advance and the phone company's automatic service informs you of the rate you'll be paying for the call - or something like that.

Besides, I'm never going to return a call made from a mobile if I have to pay the airtime.
I'm not sure I understand this one. How would that happen?

Re:"Skype Out" price gouging

[tricorn]

Besides, I'm never going to return a call made from a mobile if I have to pay the airtime.
I'm not sure I understand this one. How would that happen?

Someone calls me from their cellphone. Why would I want to call them back to find out what they wanted if I have to pay?

Being long-distance is an equal access type thing. They are where they are, I am where I am. It isn't a convenience, it's a fact. When I call someone long distance, the rates I get are based on MY carrier, MY calling card, MY calling plan, not theirs. With cellphones, the rates are all over the place, but if caller pays, then the person doing the paying has no control over choosing the rate.

Roaming is also a problem. If a cellphone is local, and I'm expecting to pay only local plus airtime to call it, what happens when it is in Hawaii? Is it now also a long-distance call? What happens if I call it FROM Hawaii? Shouldn't it now be a local call (plus airtime)? What if airtime is more expensive in Hawaii, do I also have to pay the higher rate?

Bitwise does that

[CheXboX]

almost all of the things that I have read that people want in an IM, encryption, file transfers, direct connections, offline messaging, are in Bitwise. I have been using it for quite a while and I have no problems with it. I prefer it to other clients and its pretty customizable to be like the client that you are used to.

Whilst I welcome the news...

[fussili]

Skype is going to have to be pretty insanely phenomenal to come close to iChat AV.

iChat's Audio Conferencing lags behind Skype but its Video Conferencing (4 way no less) is just crazily good. Apple built iChat from the ground up using the powerful Quicktime 7 implementation in 10.4 and it shows.

I'd used plenty of Video Chat products but iChat was the first time I got the feeling that the technology had reached "Batman" standards.

(Oh sure Batman, it takes you a day to decrypt some stupid riddle, you use a massive magnifying glass to spot a buoy on a bit photograph of the ocean and your computer is a selection of flashing lights without a graphical or even command line interface but perfect quality video conferencing? Piece of cake!)

Re:Whilst I welcome the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're using an On2 codec for the video. On2 claims that they're codecs are better than H.264. If that's true it might be just as good as iChat AV.

Re:Whilst I welcome the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how good iChat is it doesn't stand a chance unless it is cross platform or Windows based AND free to those platforms. Technical superiority is all well and good, but if you need an entirely different class of machine to use the program it is worthless to the vast majority of people. This is where Skype is getting it right (or at least trying to). They have a product that works on several platforms and is easy to use.

Re:Whilst I welcome the news...

[tricorn]

How do you do 4-way video conferencing with iChat? As soon as I am in a video chat with someone else (one-way or two-way), both of us are marked unavailable for audio/video, and neither of us can initiate another chat (audio or video). We can still do IM, of course.

iChat doesn't seem able to traverse two NAT routers properly (without doing port forwarding or DMZ tricks), and I'm not sure why not. It should be a simple matter of sending a packet to the server you're both talking to, which notifies the other of your real IP address and port number being used. The routers I've tested attempt to keep the same port number after translation, and even when it has to change it, at least keeps it consistent (e.g. sending from port 61000 to host A and host B, both would see packets coming from the same port). From there, it is a simple exercise to set up two-way direct communication even with both sides being behind NAT/firewall. You can do UDP or TCP this way (TCP works best if the NAT ignores, rather than rejects, connection attempts, which makes the first side to try connecting wait, until the other side attempts to connect, and then magically they're both connected. It won't work if one side rejects a connection attempt, and the other side doesn't maintain an open connection status after it has been rejected (depends on how well it tracks the state of a connection). This whole idea of communicating using numbers and ports, with different ports being assumed to be using corresponding protocols, is so out of date).

Re:Whilst I welcome the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The person who initiates the iChat must have a G5 [or a dual G4]. When the first two parties are AVing, the initiator then clicks the + button in the chat window to add further conferencees

Re:Whilst I welcome the news...

[tricorn]

Ok, I've done that in a text chat, but I don't recall seeing any + button on the audio or video chat window... I'll look for it next time I call my sister. Can you add while doing a one-way video, or add in a one-way video to a two-way?

BugMeNot

[TheoMurpse]

usr: email50@mailinator.com
pwd: vapidcity

NO MAC Version!!

[riversky]

Looks like after spending billions to aquire Skype, eBay doesn't have the money left to develop a Mac version 2.0. Not available and no date of release given. Another frustrating day to be a Mac user....Sigh

Re:NO MAC Version!!

[geddes]

From the LA Times:
Indeed, the image quality is not quite as good as that achieved by the iChatAV system that Apple Computer Inc. debuted in 2003. But iChatAV was a marginal development because it works only on Macintosh machines, meaning it can be enjoyed by only a relatively small number of computer users.

We mac users have an amazing video chat system already. What apple needs to do is to port iChat to windows like they did iTunes. Although, I wonder how much the LA Times reviewer's comments have to do with the camera he used and the software. The iSight is an excellent camera, and it would probably fare pretty well with Skype. Also, I am sure that when they get beyond beta that they will release an OS X skype 2 client.

There's a review at Techworld

[judgecorp]

We've kicked the tyres a bit, and it's pretty good. Shame it doesn't work on Linux or Mac, but Skype tells us these versions are on the way...

Re:There's a review at Techworld

[riversky]

Mac version on the way.....Yah as a Mac user I will believe it when I see it. Perhaps they are having problems with the codec on Mac or perhaps they just made a resource development decision. Well, this Mac user hopes on the way doesn't become a long term wait.

I have a suggestion - perfect beta software

[Hopieopdepaus]

You could try http://www.wigiwigi.com/ (WigiWigi, dont mind the name). The interface is a bit crude, but that shouldnt be a problem for the /. audience. Video-quality is far, FAR better than Skypes, while audio-quality is still a bit behind due to the lack of echo-cancellation, which will be implemented soon according to the developer. Of course its not really finished yet, but personally I think this one developer has already created a better product than the millions of Ebay and Skype.

Skype's own words on video for Mac and Linux

[judgecorp]

Here's what we managed to get out of Skype. We asked about future plans for other platforms - and anything else we could think of.

"Today video calling is only for Windows, but our strategy in the past has been to roll out on other platforms reasonably soon," said James Bilefield, Skype's vice president of business development. "It depends on feedback and testing - and we have dedicated teams on those platforms."

The clear message there is to start bugging Skype to support other platforms.

VoipBuster

[sankeld]

Check out VoipBuster. It is similar to Skype except calls to regular telephones in most of europe and the US is free.

Re:VoipBuster

[josath]

That thing looks sooooo shady. At one point, a while back when I first heard of them, their terms & conditions were word for word identical to skype's, except with 'Skype' search & replaced with 'VoipBuster'. I would be very wary of giving them money.

I tried their 'free' call (which is limited to a couple of minutes if you don't pay them - yes you have to pay in order to make free calls), and the quality was poor, with a several second delay, which makes it hard to hold a conversation.

Re:VoipBuster

[Anonymous Coward]

I use them, but by another name, www.sipdiscount.com.

They run several VOIP and calling card businesses, e.g. there's a french-branded service and a german-branded service. voipbuster is geared towards using their softphone on windows. I don't use that, I use straight SIP, and that's what sipdiscount is geared towards.

Quality of calls is very good and the price is unbeatable. They have totally free calls to USA and 19 other countries (so I call USA for free).

I used it to make a 70-minute call to the USA. It was clear. There was some delay in the voice path, but that's typical of VOIP if you go international. Sometime later I made a 40-minute call to the USA, same deal. Total cost: $0.

I also use it to call Australian landlines and mobiles (I'm in AU). The timed charge (1 euro cent/minute) to Australian landlines means a short call through sipdiscount will cost me less than the 10c I can pay for an untimed call.

The mobile rates in AU are expensive whether you're calling from inside the country or outside. sipdiscount are not the cheapest rate I could find, but they are close to it.

So no, it's not shady.

Looks like you haven't tried it in a while

[Pausanias]

I guess you haven't tried video conferencing using iChat AV (Mac) or AOL Instant Messenger (PC) or iVisit (Mac/PC). They all work quite well. My parents and in-laws, who live more than a thousand miles away, can get to chat with their 1-year-old grandson and actually keep up with all the little ways he grows up each week.

Seriously, the quality of (especially Mac-to-Mac) video chatting is unbelievable. I remember watching Star Trek TNG in the 80s-90s and telling myself, "yeah, like we'll every be able to chat face-to-face with another human with such quality." Well, now it's available to anyone with a PC and a webcam, and if you're wililing to shell out US$800 for an eMac+iSight, it's an especially painless experience. I'll never forget the expression on my mother-in-law's face when she first tried it. Before trying the iChat, she basically thought that computers were horrible things that you had to work with in order to get boring tasks done. After seeing the iChat in action, she's completely come about 180 degrees, and she's even started becoming more curious about that "Internet" thing sitting in her dock.

I will use this...

[Anonymous Coward]

...technology to build me a 1960s Picturephone just like the Bell System model I saw in Tomorrowland at Disneyland in 1968.

You can already use Skype with video

[MicroPat]

There's another program called Festoon (previously titled vSkype), which intergrates into Skype decently. I've enjoyed the video

Re:You can already use Skype with video

[Erik K. Veland]

Pretty useless to anyone not on Windows.

Recording Audio?

[Khith]

One thing that's kept me away from Skype is the fact that it seems it's not easy to record your conversations. (to wav/mp3/ogg/whatever)

I know there are privacy issues, but can't they code in a checkbox that both sides must check before allowing the recording function to work?

I've tried things like Total Recorder, but it has issues with my card and often garbles things.

The only thing similar to Skype which I have used was Teamspeak 2, which isn't as easy to set up, especially on multiple platforms, and often needing to tell someone on the other end how to set it up.

But those issues, combined with my poor memory, keep me coming back to IM programs (currently Trillian) which log all of my conversations.

Bullshit! (You can already use Skype with video)

[Anonymous Coward]

When you try to download it has some file name setup.exe, how the fuck you expect
me to run that with skype on SuSE Linux?

skype or gaim/google talk for linux

[spinctrl]

Gaim 2.0 should be available in a couple of months, for the usual platforms, integrating audio and video. Specifically, this release is due to support google talk's voice feature. Being a long-term Gaim user, I'll have it on my KDE desktop, and encouraging Windows users to turn to google talk for compatibility.