Skype 2.0 Adds Video

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Thursday December 1, 2005 @01:48AM from the i-see-you dept.

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.

36 of 192 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I love Skype by tsa · 2005-12-01 01:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

--
-- Cheers!
Wow.. this is so like.. 1997 by cybrthng · 2005-12-01 01:51 · Score: 3, Informative

CUSeeMe
1. Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997 by i23098 · 2005-12-01 01:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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...
2. Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997 by ady1 · 2005-12-01 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  actually its not. skype is one of its kind which uses p2p and has encrypted communication
3. Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997 by D-Cypell · 2005-12-01 02:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997 by cybrthng · 2005-12-01 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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)
5. Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997 by Taladar · 2005-12-01 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You forgot "...with an annoying name like Skype or Blog or Podcast..." in the "years later" part of your sentence.
  
  --
  Linux is not Windows
6. Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997 by sammy+baby · 2005-12-01 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
Yet Another Waste of Bandwidth by xoip · 2005-12-01 01:52 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
Demand for the video phone? by aussie_a · 2005-12-01 01:55 · Score: 4, Informative

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?
1. Re:Demand for the video phone? by JPriest · 2005-12-01 02:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Plenty of IM clients have supported audio too but until Skype nobody ever really used it.
  
  --
  Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
2. Re:Demand for the video phone? by sbryant · 2005-12-01 02:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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
How does it perform on Linux? by bogaboga · 2005-12-01 01:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?
1. Re:How does it perform on Linux? by tsetem · 2005-12-01 02:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
gimme gimme gimme by DaPoulpe · 2005-12-01 01:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

A multi-platform Video Skype and you got yourself something way cooler than Msn nor Yahoo Messenger largest user base or not.
Re:Large user base? by aussie_a · 2005-12-01 02:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Does it work with 3G phones ? by terminal.dk · 2005-12-01 02:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

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)
Skype line quality by edxwelch · 2005-12-01 02:07 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Skype line quality by tsa · 2005-12-01 02:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
2. Re:Skype line quality by SpooForBrains · 2005-12-01 02:37 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "the internet is going very slow"
  
  Seriously, man, didn't you get the email about the internet cleaning days?
  
  --
  "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Skype-integrated eBay? by digitaldc · 2005-12-01 02:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
512 kBit/s bandwith? by raudi · 2005-12-01 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative

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
its too much generalization by ady1 · 2005-12-01 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Been done before? by XMilkProject · 2005-12-01 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Re:I'll wait for SIP by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-12-01 02:29 · Score: 2, Informative

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:Mac (and Linux) users by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-12-01 02:34 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Most important... by b0bby · 2005-12-01 02:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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?
Please fix linux support first by geirt · 2005-12-01 02:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--

RFC1925
Re:Mac (and Linux) users by el_womble · 2005-12-01 02:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

--
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Finally... by null-sRc · 2005-12-01 02:52 · Score: 2, Funny

... 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.

--
-judging another only defines yourself
Body language by CrazedWalrus · 2005-12-01 02:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
"Skype Out" price gouging by Bombula · 2005-12-01 03:15 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
A-Bomb
Whilst I welcome the news... by fussili · 2005-12-01 03:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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!)
BugMeNot by TheoMurpse · 2005-12-01 03:55 · Score: 2, Informative

usr: email50@mailinator.com
pwd: vapidcity
Re:Mac (and Linux) users by Matlo · 2005-12-01 05:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

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:I'll wait for SIP by beasstman · 2005-12-01 05:22 · Score: 2, Informative

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.