Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Offer Free Wireless VoIP
Strudelkugel writes "The Business Online reports: MICROSOFT has developed a Skype-style free internet voice service for mobile phones that City analysts believe could wipe billions off the market value of operators such as Vodafone.The service is included in a mobile version of Microsoft Office Communicator due to be released this year. It will take the form of a voice-over internet protocol (VoIP) application that allows Office users to make free voice calls over wi-fi enabled phones running Windows Mobile software. Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer dropped his bombshell at the mobile operators' annual 3GSM show in Barcelona last week. The significance of his remarks was missed because of his effusive and eccentric delivery..." That is huge; I would hope to see the same thing coming out on the Symbian and other devices. The hard part will be getting these to market; since almost all mobile phones are sold thru the mobile telcom companies.
Bundling free services with Microsoft products? I smell a lawsuit.
The hard part will be getting these to market; since almost all mobile phones are sold thru the mobile telcom companies.
I think consumers will be willing to buy cell phones from anyone who can eliminate their costly cell phone bills. All Microsoft would have to do is work out a deal with Walmart or some other national chain and people will flock there if this is the real deal.
No Sigs!
"...could wipe billions off the market value of operators such as Vodafone"
Only if free wi-fi is available everywhere where Vodafone signal is...
Microsoft are just as scared of VoIP as the carriers, with Skype, Google Talk and everyone else jumping on the VoIP bandwagon, it's another application "space" that Microsoft haven't entered and therefore can't control. By releasing their own "Skype killer" it means that they can control how people use this service, and make sure that Microsoft products are the way to do it.
As much as I hate microsoft, I think they are on a real winner with this one. If it ever makes it to the Australian market I'd sign up for it. I for one am sick to death of paying a $0.20 call connection fee + $0.60 per minute to use my mobile, perhaps this will force the telecommunications industry to adopt reasonable rates.
Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
Let's see if the telcos can still use and maintain their "traffic shaping" in the face of Microsoft. If it's not good for anything, at least the 800 pound gorrila is on our side this time..
Good on Microsoft for showing some initiative. Skype's great, and I pay to use it, but it does not have the impact (read marketing) MS can throw behind a product.
:)
Considering what an absolute rip-off cell calls are and have always been, I'm all for free wireless + voip.
PS. I wonder if any telco ceo's are throwing chairs around
out of Google's book?
Isn't this already being pioneered in San Francisco and countless other places?
As I read this article I couldn't help but think of the parallels between what Microsoft is doing with VOIP and what IBM did with the personal computer. VOIP is headed for 100% adoption now, and the telcos are in serious trouble. People are going to use free or cheap internet access points, and nobody is going to pay those outrageous rates for the cell phone infrastructure anymore.
Thank you, Microsoft. You may still be evil, but you've done the world a favor by destroying the exploitative business model of an industry that is arguably more evil.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Convergence between small, portable computing devices and small, portable telephones has been occurring for years. Much of the technology is the same, much of the manufacturing is the same, the consumers are the same.
The question is, how much control of our personal information, how much logging and protocolling, how centralized will this convergence become? I would really hate to see the day when most people are emailing, phoning, websurfing and otherwise communicating on a hardware and software platform which comes with user-distrust cryptographically enforced on a TPM module.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
The other possibility is that the phone has some kind of wi-fi capabilties that connects to a local wireless network. I'm sure that will be the first feature to be crippled when you buy your Vodafone / O2 / Orange / T-Mobile branded phone.
But even assuming it weren't, how is this any different from what you can do with Skype now? I use my iPaq & Skype to make calls from hotels all the time. I too can call other Skype users for free, and landlines & mobiles. They don't have to buy MS Office or even be running Windows. The biggest problem with wi-fi access is that coverage spotty, potentially expensive, potentially illegal, and there is no roaming or moving at all. And you can kiss goodbye to your battery life. On top of that, workers are expected to be using a Microsoft enable phone with Microsoft Office.
It all sounds like a pipe dream to me. Of course because MS is a huge gorilla they might be able to foist this on some networks, especially the concept of site wide coverage (i.e. it works anywhere on the company premises), but that's about it IMHO.
Sounds to me like they're trying to outgoogle Google. Google has beaten Microsoft in many product areas because most of what it produces is useful, well designed and free, whereas most of Microsoft comes up with is inaccessible, bloated and often expensive.
Sounds like Microsoft wants to take a leaf out of Google's book. If Google didn't exist Microsoft would be charging a subscription for this.
5 hours later, Redmond, Ballmer's Office
CRASH!
When I drop bombshells, CHAIRS BREAK! THAT WAS NOT A FUCKING BOMBSHELL!
Sounds of chairs being thrown
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
With Linux eating up their business all over the planet, what's a monopoly to do? :)
:)
Don't worry- this'll as good as everything else has.
Anyone want a cookie?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
...from the Microsoft internal dictionary:
Innovation (noun) The act of poorly imitating the most hyped current technology and passing it off as your own.
Thanks to their deplorable deal with Intel they are off my memory page for good.
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
I'm all for this, but at least where I live in the UK most public WAPss are control by telephone companies like BT or T-Mobile, this even includes WAPss that you find in hotels etc.. It would definately be good at home and at work but I think less good on the move unless a bunch more WiFi operators start up and get seriously comptetive.
As it is, I only really use public WAPs when I really need something because they also charge very high rates for short sessions like an hour. The only way to get better rates on the public WAPs is to subscribe to a telco operated service then you end up full circle.
Mobile operators are also moving in the same direction with the unlicensed mobile access (UMA) technology. With UMA you'll be able to make calls with your mobile phone through a Wi-Fi network. The operators know that this will eat into their wireless revenue stream, but they hope to recover the losses from a higher usage (you'll be using your mobile phone at home). So the real question is the choice between Microsoft's (nonstandard?) VoIP version and UMA.
I live in the UK most public WAPss are control by telephone companies like BT (1) or T-Mobile (2)
You do realise what the "mono" in "monopoly" means, yes? "Most" public WAPs are operated by various telecoms companies. What's your point? That's like claiming Vodafone have a monopoly on mobile telecoms because "most" mobile phone masts "are control[sic] by telephone companies like Vodafone or Orange".
Do Verizon, the baby Bells, and cable operators like Cablevision that offer their own pay to use VOIP have to play along with this death knell?
It's already technically against my TOS to host a Civ4 game, could we expect the same for VOIP use? Or what about a more brutal "port-block" like method of stopping wifi phones from connecting in wi-fi hotspots or even at home? Won't the infrastructure have to be set in place and cooperating for VOIP wifi enabled phones to take off?
"The significance of his remarks was missed because of his effusive and eccentric delivery..."
is THAT what that monkey dance is called. Hey, mom! I'm not a total wingnut! I'm effusive and eccentric!
-- No Sig is a Good Sig
And it will probably use their own protocol and probably have to connect to the PSTN constantly to have any usefulness. And because they connect to the PSTN they will have to pay pound-me-in-the-ass wholesale rates for calls, completely defeating the purpose of VoIP. I used to work in the VoIP industry and made a striking observation. The calls that get completely routed SIP/SDP/RTP are dirt cheap! This is what a majority of what the small guys do and they make an absolute killing. One guy with a 2,500 dollar VoIP gateway can make thousands a month.
So using your own protocol makes you least accessable in the VoIP arena, and you end up having to connect to the PSTN for the majority of your calls and paying Bellsouth pound-me-in-the-ass rates. IAX has it right and will probably be the future for the small guys.
It's mind boggling that any of these new guys would want to force themselves to connect to the PSTN. Traditional telecoms are a technological dinosaur and we really don't need them anymore. They are still around because they have so much power. If all the VoIP guys just used a standard, they could superceed traditional telecom and eventually force it to adapt.
But they are dumb. The small guys will continue to make a killing working together. The big guys will continue to write their own protocols. And the big telecoms will continue to charge outrageous rates for their 1980's technology.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
So, what happens if I'm on the train? Or in a village. Does this roam?
I guess it will work in a town, assuming I've got a hotspot for the network that I've signed up with for a month, and not one of the other providers. In which case, I'll have to sign up again to use their service, all with my easy to use cellphone web browser.
Someone tried something called Rabbit in the UK where people would have to be near a basepoint. The mobile networks offered more flexibility and costs were coming down.
This won't be like Rabbit, but I don't imagine the network providers are quaking in their boots.
I for one welcome our new, who ever they are, free VOIP overlords!
consider the risk of MSIEzating the VoIP protocol. I seriously don't believe Microsoft isn't going to play the usual proprietarization trick to lock user under their own closed platform and eventually levy its own monopoly tax. In any case the quality of Microsoft 1.0 releases hasn't ever been exactly stellar so while waiting for Microsoft to get it right try this other proprietary platform. After all it's here, now.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Isn't that exactly what Skype has been offering for almost 2 years now with Skype for Pocket PC?
http://www.skype.com/products/skype/pocketpc/
Just can't enter new markets. They have to prove that their monopoly money has not been used unfairly. The VoIP operators and the telcos know this, being rather expert themselves. I think they are just overhanging the market. More FUD. The battle is still over Linux.
Let's see, in the UK GPRS is around £2/Mb. VoIP at a poor 16kbit/second = 120 kbytes/minute. Which means that for £2 you can speak for around 8 minutes. Way too expensive I think!
Skype for Windows Mobile has been out for ages. It will run on any device running pocket PC or Windows Mobile with a wifi connection. http://www.skype.com/products/skype/pocketpc/
Skype does, unlike say Yahoo and Google tools.
So you have to buy something to get something free? Hmmm, smells fishy...
Sig?
While the pundits are thanking MS for undercutting the telcos, who are even bigger bloodsuckers than MS itself is, this is, IMO, simply Microsoft trying to grab a niche in the smartphone market where it has been performing terribly, even after the famous Microsoft 3rd Try(TM), where they usually finally make the product good enough to compete. The handset makers realised pretty early on that Microsoft's partnerships were terribly one-sided, and generally stayed with Symbian which is generally far less onerous than MS/Windows.
MS tried everything. They threw their Smartphone OS at various small operators in the hope that it would undercut the established giants, such as Sony-Ericsson, Nokia and Motorola, but no one wanted the phones from unknown makers. In that market, brand is important.
Of the telcos, the only large operator that took MS' Smartphone OS on, was Orange and it proved to be a disaster. The phones were unreliable and Orange treated potential developers as badly as everyone else did. The Orange smartphone tanked.
By this time, VOIP had taken off, and Skype was first to the post and has continually expanded its userbase to the tune of Skype now having something like 300 million customers. That's pretty big. Slashdotters tend to only see the value of Skype in a technogeek kind of way, in that they only think it's worth it because they can perhaps use a Wifi enabled PDA or smartphone with a presumably free access point (at home and a few cities if you're lucky) to circumvent mobile operators. What they don't see are the uncounted millions of poor foreign guest workers and 3rd world internet cafe visitors who use Skype to avoid the high prices of overseas and long distance calls. Those people are the ones who really benefit from Skype.
And they sure as fuck are not interested in buying Microsoft enabled Smartphones and Office. Microsoft is still trying to grab a niche in the smartphone market, but I'm pretty sure they'll fall flat on their faces once again.
If Google did this then you could store a month's worth of old conversations and search for words within them.
On Google's servers, of course.
"The significance of his remarks was missed because of his effusive and eccentric delivery... coming out on the Sybian and other devices."
Cann'tt yyoouu jjuusttt feeeeell tthhee lloovvee..
Need Mercedes parts ?
Free, RELIABLE wi-fi is not available in nearly as many areas in the U.S. as even T-Mobile cell phone coverage. (Note: T-Mobile's coverage SUCKS. They still have far greater and more reliable coverage than free or even paid Wi-Fi.)
Also note that 802.11's channel access scheme is not well suited to transferring many small packets at low latency, which is required for VoIP. The end result is that even an 802.11g access point at full rate (54 Mbps) has trouble matching even a 1.544 Mbps T1 line in terms of VoIP capacity, *even with voice compression*. This is because the capacity limit turns out to be not the raw bitrate, but the number of *packets* per second that the system is able to handle. Small packets and 802.11 just don't mix for a number of reasons. For bulk data, there are packet bursting extensions to 802.11 that help a lot (Part of SuperG for example, and I think Broadcom's equivalent to SuperG also does bursting), but packet bursting introduces too much latency and variation in latency for VoIP.
There was a good analysis of 802.11 capacity for SIP-based VoIP somewhere, I can't remember where. Note that IAX trunks would get MUCH better capacity in this situation, but this only helps for actual trunk connections (for example, trunking across a long-range cantenna-based 11g link), not when each user has a different device connected to the AP.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Currently i am using a PocketPc with wifi and Skype to do local and international calls. Microsoft developed the pocketPc, and only now, after years of connecting their pocketPc's using wifi, their folks discovered that can make money with voip.
Microsoft don't have a NAT-NAT communication feature inside MSN Messenger, and this product doesn't allow voip inside a pocketpc. Microsoft won't control this market, even with their pocketPc line.
Their guys don't have competence to do new killer applications, currently they are trying to defend their monopolies.
For a long time Microsoft is trying to compete with Sony in the games, but are losting a lot of money.
Currently Microsoft makes money with Windows and Office, their other products have to compete hand to hand to gain market from competitors. Bill Gates have lost his competence in the field, he knows today how to spend his money, no more than that.
The hard part will be getting these to market; since almost all mobile phones are sold thru the mobile telcom companies.
Nah, the hard part will be companies talking to each other.
Even today prices for intercompany calls, roamings, etc, are all punitive.
Short of Total World Domination by microsoft, how well do you think MS thinguies will talk with other things in the market?
From previous experience, not so well, so we are in shait nonetheless...
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
Do we really need "cell phones" anymore these days? It's hard to believe we are still doing things like this. Here's what we should have in 2006...
Gone is the idea of the "phone". You make phone calls via a softphone on your iPaq or Zaurus type mobile device. You have a handheld computer with a softphone. Instead of the idea of connecting to a cellular phone network, you pay a monthly flat fee and get a 1 megabit EVDO pipe to your phone and home computer. You pay your VoIP provider for minutes and your cellular network provider for internet access.
The ONLY reason we don't do things like that is because cell companies have so much control. They make a crapload of money scamming us and aren't going to give it up anytime soon. Cell phone networks are of the few networks left you actually pay on a per byte basis. There's no technical reason for them to do it. They just know there are few players in that market and can get away with it.
All it would really take is an internet service provider to get the balls and team up with a cable TV and VoIP provider. Provide fiber to the home for TV, phone, and internet. Set up a 3G cell network with EVDO for mobile internet access. Sell iPaq's with a softphone. They could make a KILLING. I'm willing to bet most of middle class America would pay 200-300 dollars a month FLAT FEE to get all their voice, tv, and internet from one provider that they can use anywhere (when in reality, it's just providing internet with other services on top of it).
Sadly though, if someone's going to invest in a cellular network, they probably want to be in the raquet too and aren't going to provide all that.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
This is great if you live in a big city with lots of WiFi hotspots, but I doubt Microsoft will provide the infrastructure to make it work in the coutryside. This would mean that these people would have to rely on traditional cell phone service providers. The cost for these people would probably go up drastically if Microsoft grabs all the customers in more profitable areas.
There are also other issues, e.g. in many countries emergency calls needs to be tracable so that help can be sent even if the caller doesn't know where he is or is too badly injured to tell. Will Microsoft be able to provide this?
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
The thing is that unless this service is based upon open protocols and standards, it will be doomed to failure. How many electricity companies do you know who make money by selling you 72 volts, 16.6667Hz {well, that's what they say it is, but you aren't allowed to measure it} from weirdy sockets with different-shaped pins, and selling the special appliances to go with it possibly at a loss?
Telephones only took off because of compatibility. POTS networks are all similar enough that you can be fairly sure that a phone or modem will work anywhere in the world, if you can only find the correct plug to fit the weirdy sockets you are likely to encounter on your travels {hint: two crocodile clips and a multi-tool [please let's not start a Gerber v. Leatherman flame war here; the Gerber must be better, because all cheap knock-offs are based on the Leatherman] are as good as anything}.
A VoIP client is only any good if it is compatible with existing standards -- or if it can reasonably be reverse-engineered.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The Greek illegal wiretapping scandal: some translations and resources./ 03/1810219&from=rss,
http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~gdanezis/intercept. html
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02
imagine what an MS product compromise could mean.
With the customer support history of the two companys, i'd rather not go through either of these companys for any or my realtime telecommunicaion needs. I'd say in the end large telco's vs microsoft will amount to a zero sum for the consumer.
Not sure what universe you're living in but out of all the
people I know only 1 uses VoIP at all and even then only
when he can be bothered (easier to pick up a phone than
wait for PC to boot and all the associated bollocks that
goes with it). Sure , VoIP might be becoming popular in
internal corporate LANS but thats about it so far.
And yet Motorola won't ship the A910 (Which uses Linux and Java) because cell phone execs are worried about 802.11 cutting into their cash flow.
(Remember, you are not the consumer of cell phones in the US of A, the Cell phone oligolopy is.)
So what is this voice-over protocol?
If you press a button, does it decrease the volume of the passing packets?
That would be awesome! Imagine being able to mute that pesky neighbor who's playing his web-based pr0n too loud!
Right... just like the PocketPC version of Skype did... this stuff only works reliably (well.. kinda...) over WiFi which limits you to your home, internet cafes, random unsecured WiFi points (not that I condone wardriving or any other illegal use of other peoples access points) and (for those who are lucky) WiFi enabled metropolitan areas. Now where is it that most people use there mobile phones? I think you'll find that the majority of calls are made where there is no WiFi connectivity. I know that most of the time I'm away from an access point, and yes I do have a Windows Mobile PocketPC Edition device that has Skype on it.
I'm not too sure on the business model that the US mobile operators use but in the UK a large chunk of the revenue comes from line rental with most calls being made with inclusive minutes (there are 'Pay as you Go' plans but I've yet to find a PocketPC phone on these plans yet). Mobile operators aren't going to give a monkey's if you use Skype or your free minutes, they already have your money. The only real threat is from the PocketPC PDAs (the non-phone ones) that aren't linked to a mobile network and generate no revenue for mobile operators.
And as a side note - last time I checked Vodafone don't sell any Windows Mobile powered devices (at least in the UK) so they aren't really going to be affected by this unless everyone jumps ship to another operator.
Wake up ppl, you have had 20 years of paying for this Professional upgrade slop.
You will need to pay "professional" costs for any use of this 'personal' service.
Embrace: "Free"
Extend: "a form of a voice-over internet protocol"
Extinguish: "professional solutions" as they try to go free vs M$ consumer junk.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
...forget proprietary solutions. Most mobile devices have programming languages based on .net or java now. Those which support wifi can use any voip protocol someone writes a client for.
The key here will be when a good SIP, IAX2, h.323, or whatever -- stack exists through LGPL so that most programmers can easily use it to create those clients.
So, the Stack-Geek types need to get those open stacks written and out there so the UI-Geek types can use them to make clever VoIP clients.
VoIP is so much more than just phone calls -- as these stacks emerge using a VoIP stream to carry all kind of real time data will become very commmon.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Or so they say.
-- Boycott Shell
So he threw another chair, right?
Christopher Harrison
There are many reasons why today's existing cell phones are safe for now. They have more reliable coverage than WiFi, there are more cool phones available, some people ignore the rates, etc. However, voip is beginning to eat away from the bottom. It's true that for most, voip is still more trouble than it is worth but for a small and growing set of users, voip is perfect. If you make a lot of calls from a fixed point with an existing reliable ip network then voip already works well. I'm sure MSFT and Google can afford to tinker on the details for the next 20 years. A time during which the traditional cell phone market will begin to decelerate and then contract.
This is a classic example of The Innovator's Dilemma and traditional cell coverage cannot avoid it.
Not sure if "OffTopic" but ill comment, I live in a Time Warner Service Area. Time Warner was getting to roll out its "WiFi" program to the nearby towns... The city already had plans to put in their own little wifi spots around the downtown area. It Turns out, timewarner issued a statement saying if the city would proceed with its plans, TWC would consider the city a competetitor and Cut back on "Community Based Funding" As it turned out, "Free" isnt always the best way to go. TWC put in their wifi, the city backed off, funding still in place, everyone, but the consumer wins? (since theres no free beer involved) How does this relate to Microsoft? - Theres no such thing as FREE - A definition of free by MS standards is = We have to wipe out the competition, then we will revisit "Free" Last time i checked, VOIP over WIFI is not very pretty. Just my 2 cents
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
We have been discussing MIcrosoft on this site before, how it would often make announcements about its upcoming technology (something that competes with existing technology) and where businesses and consumers would not buy current products and services from competing manufacturers because all were awaiting this great, low cost, high feature product from Microsoft.
Only to discover that good quality products have disappeared because they companies had to shut down, and Microsoft either did not deliver or delivered something that was very poorly done.
Vist http://www.securityfocus.com/ sometime. You'll find Microsoft VERY accessable.
I can't wait.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
The Gizmo project already has a STANDARDS based software phone that does this http://www.gizmoproject.com/ on Windows, Mac or Linux. No need to get stuck into a proprietary Skype or Microsoft ghetto.
It's a *gimmick*. Wipe billions off the mobile companies... Honestly, talk about hyperbole...
You can already buy DECT compatible mobile phones, they haven't taken off because people just use the phone on their desk when near it, simple. And wifi has a 150 foot range... get real...
Deleted
I use Axcess G-1000 WIFI VOIP Phone for some time now, no need to subscribe to WiFi if you know your area's open access points. Since I work for VoIP provider my VoIP phone has a regular number, but nothing stops you from IP-dialing if you want to keep it free. Now I'm waiting for VoIP phone with fallback to cell to arrive - there are some out there but ones I tested had issues.
The energy consumption of wifi is roughly 3-4 times more, that means that if you decide to manage most of your talks through the wifi connection, your batteries will last for a significanly shorter time. Today the battery is already the biggest part of your mobile phone, so unless there will be a huge breakthrough in the ways we store energy, there is another reason to think (besides those that others mentioned above) that wifi-enabled phones won't completely replace regular ones.
Attitudes make the difference between Space and Time: we want to MAX our temporal, and MIN our spatial extension.
I wonder how this is too little, too late against the new alliance of 3G company 3 (available in AT, AU, HK, DK, SE, UK, IT, amongst others) with Skype, offering skyping via 3G. This should definitely get the international call prices down, a process which has begun in some places already.
Hurricane Application Group, Dept of Meteorology Control, Ministry of Proactive Defense
Most of the cellular phones, and especially the high end ones, are sold with a big discount in exchange for a subscription period of 12 or 24 months. At least in Sweden. Who will discount Wi-Fi phones? I doubt that regular people will take the cost with the rather poor coverage of Wi-Fi currently. Also roaming between accesspoints needs to be solved before this is a real threat to cellular telephony. For fixed telephony it might be an alternative though, as is Skype. Sorry, but I doubt the success here, except for the hype ofcourse...
Imagine how much money there is to be made. Now, you will be able to send SPAM everywhere. Spammers will be thanking bill for tripling the amount of mony that they make. :)
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I've had a Symbian phone for over a year now(Nokia 9500) and it's worked great, but there's nothing to add. With Windows Mobile I'll get Skype, I can use Woize if I have to, but I'd rather have Xten's PPC Phone which I can directly connect to my Asterisk box. Not to mention I can get a free AIM for it(Symbian costs, was only $30 or around there but still).
Sorry, I love my Nokia, but I need my VoIP and I need features. Not to mention MiniMo will run on it too. =)
Can the MS Mobile softphone point at an independent VoIP server, or must it point at Microsoft? It's like the dedicated MSN client vs Netscape (and AOL and Mozilla and IE and Firefox) all over again.
Can the MS VoIP servers be accessed by an independent client? Like a client that already talks MSN IM protocols with VoIP extensions?
--
make install -not war
"Past results do not guarantee future performance" as they say.
"Only a moron puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger to see if it's loaded" as they say.
you have put forward absolutely nothing to support your claims
Don't you read tech news?
Judging from Microsoft's past performance, is there any reason to support your pooh-poohing of Microsoft making a mess of this? What do you have to support your refuting of the original claim?
Look at Microsoft's JRE, it suffered from multiple security vulnerabilities, whereas Sun's JRE didn't. Microsoft has a terrible track record with security, even years after its 'Trustworthy Computing' initiative started.
*Imagine* is all I can do at this point
Of course it is. But please don't start suggesting that it's unlikely Microsoft is going to make a mess of this!!
Rabbit was a venture by Hutchinson Telecom, who threw it overin favour of Orange. One of the good points aboout rabbit was that they had recievers underground in tube stations, IIRC.
When Wi-Max comes out, VOIP is the killer app. Keep in mind that Google probably isn't developing hotspot tech for 801.11 tech, but for wimax. Verizon and their ilk want to charge extra for video over their lines, but soon many more companies will be able to enter their space for less money. Today, ESPN buys space from Sprint, tomorrow, that won't even be necessary.
And Yes, this is why most carriers don't want to work with MS. It's just a matter of time before MS goes for the jugular.
1) WiFi isn't universally available 2) Wireless internet is presently crippled with latency delays 3) All wireless companies have to do is slow their adoption of MS Mobile O/S 4) MS themselves will not want to make too many enemies at this time Hence the roll out is likely to become a rival for a downgraded Free Skype type service ONLY, mainly because of letency and the lack of availability of compatible handsets and/or available WiFi. 5+ years down the road this development points out the merger of wireless Voice and data into one service for data. Question is will the encumbent wrieless companies firht this or will they eventually decide to embrace it? Down the road even further the roll out of a type of WiMax service globally might become an attractive serivice to 8undermine today's wireless cellphone companies. But this is too far off to estimate, at this time. All IMHO of course.
It works for Google...
Google's last big announcement was that they're working on letting people use gmail to provide maikl service on their own domain names. But it turns out another major internet web email provider had done the same thing already... Microsoft.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
using skype you can already call/receive calls with a pocket pc
http://www.skype.com/products/skype/pocketpc/
There are a few wifi enabled phones out there and others landing soon (eg Nokia N91)
If Scype or any of the others want their foot in the door they need to get their symbian and MobilePC versions out asap. I'll get wifi calls at home or work
They have Wi-Fi enabled cellphones???!!
3G internet costs a fortune to use (it's a total scam). I think Vodafone would actually be delighted if you were foolish enough to use VOIP over 3G. MS might make it "free" to call fellow MS Office licensees, but the internet access isn't free.
I think this is the key point. If "free" internet access were available everywhere cell phone coverage was available, then this would be a no-brainer. Cell phones would merely become batter-powered wireless LAN cards with a microphone and a speaker attached to them.
Technical issues with VOIP quality over 802 standards aside, somehow you have to roll out Wi-Fi to match cell phone coverage, and someone has to pay for that.
I could see the cell phone companies re-configuring their cell towers to also support WiFi. Your phone will need to be able to identify itself, and you will then be billed for WiFi access minutes instead of cell phone minutes. Of course, if you were in a "free" hotspot you could operate for "free".
I am starting to believe that a national WiFi Network might be something I would be interested in paying my taxes for, much like libraries. This could be a service that is of great benefit to all citizens, businesses, and government agencies - a true national asset.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I have two Microsoft brand keyboards and several models of their mice. I foresee NO PROBLEMS with Microsoft's ability to sell their hardware.
Now, having them set up their own communications network, that might be a bit of a challenge.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I'm willing to bet most of middle class America would pay 200-300 dollars a month FLAT FEE to get all their voice, tv, and internet from one provider that they can use anywhere (when in reality, it's just providing internet with other services on top of it).
I was with you up until there.
I currently pay: ~$50/month for basic cable TV + internet access ~$80/month for 2 cell phones ~$25/month for Vonage TOTAL: ~$155
Even that is too much for us. We are cancelling the cell phones very soon. We had cell phones to replace the land-line phone, but now that we have the Vonage VOIP phones we will be ditching the cell phones. We'll miss the convenience but not the expense.
I'm uncomfortable with any "communications" bill that crests $100. Any more than that and I start thinking about what I'm really getting for my money, and what I can cut out.
Also, I don't think there needs to be VOIP fees in your vision of the future, either. The only reason we need to pay a VOIP service provider is so he can integrate the system with the old POTS system. If everyone was on the internet you can make VOIP calls just by knowing their IP address.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Those darn socialist hippies at Microsoft are at it again, taking bread out of the mouths of hard-working capitalists by GIVING stuff away for free. Don't those anarchist bastards realize there's no value in something if people don't have to pay for it? Presumably the quality of VOIP will now deteriorate, because lack of profit motive will kill innovation, etc, etc, and all the other things Ballmer is always ranting about.
1. Buyout small VoIP firm
2. Give out free software until microsoft has the majority in the market
3. Start chargeing a "Usage" fee
4. ?????
5. Profit!
MS Communicator enters Microsoft into two areas:
The integration only works on MS OSes and in MS Office of course.
Microsoft recently announced that they're going into the corporate mobile email business, competing with RIM.
Microsoft announced that their mobile OS will support free wireless VOIP.
So... the year is 2008. You fire up your new workplace computer, it comes up with MS Communicator. You can add all your buddies from your IM lists, and you can add all their cell phones for texting. You can also access your corporate email.
Now you're looking at your cell phone plan and thinking "I sure wish I had a MS mobile phone so that I could use all these features from my cell phone. Free calling, corporate IM, corporate email integration... etc."
That's how MS uses their OS monopoly to extend into the cellular market, entrench their corporate email solution, deepen their penetration of MS Office, while providing people the first reason to upgrade since Office 97.
(BTW, I HATE real-time collaboration.)
I don't see how this is any different from the phone (6130?) that Nokia released recently (which had an article here too, I think). The phone will use Wifi and VoIP for free calls if available.
Also, Skype is available for some mobile devices.
Just because it is Microsoft (and late in the game as usual) doesn't mean that the mobile Voip-ball isn't already rolling.
Does this mean that M$ will provide guaranteed connections through out their coverage area? (smirk)
What the carriers offer is a reliable connection and that is something that Voip+WiFi can't. Building out network coverage for this type of system will present reliability and coverage problems that are overcome by expensive carrier class equipment.
And they could build the chairs with althetic grip handles, and they could advertise that our chairs fly 25% farther than the competition. I don't know, but I bet a few people would buy them...
Remember the flap about one of the bell corporations threatening to charge more for access to certain features or portals, like Google? If this becomes very popular, it will increase pressure to allow exactly that kind of graduate rate system. The carriers and fiber cable owners will end up charging premium prices for premium services like high bandwidth or low latency connections. After the dust settles, you will probably be paying more, not less overall for the combination mobile phone + wifi internat access.
Where this would work without this kind of interference is in an office where a company can get a "bulk" rate from the carrier service, which will reduce the "premium services charges." But don't count on that for retail, i.e. the individual customer.
What it may allow Microsoft to do is lock businesses in to a complete package of computer _and_ communications services and software, making it even harder for businesses to jump when it becomes more and more expensive.
Hey,
Expensive telecommunications vastly favors the geek community. You all want to give away the milk for free. But then, who will pay your salary?
I am pretty sure Baller doesn't get it (or care), but I can assure you that the industry will not support this approach as microsoft is taking to saw off THEIR branch.
One problem with pointy haired geeks, is that they constantly saw off the branches they are sitting on.
This is why Gates owns the world. He is at least smart enough to saw off other peoples branches.
Have a nice day.
Anyone remember the stories about M$ buying into internet satellite schemes in about 2000?
OK, now keeping that in mind, I pay 20$/mo for my VOIP system, another 100USD/mo (I'm overseas atm) for my broadband connection, and probably about 50USD/mo for my cell plan (Company picks that up).
If I could call up my fiance dept and say "Hey, what you say we go halfers on that cell phone, but instead we'll use this sat link" do you think Finace would go along with it?
Add to that the fact that I'm technical architech for the company I'm in. I KNOW that if I told them we could do away with all our cell phones in exchange for a flat monthly, even realively high monthly, cost, and I could link it into the company's VOIP PBX, that I could sell that plan.
If that's what M$ is thinking, I hope they think more like that. If there's one company I like less then M$ it's our local telcos.
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
WRONG!
... just to name a few.
It would transfer those Billions TO MICROSOFT, as if they don't have enough already.
It's not new behavior for Microsoft. Netscape, Go, Pen, Stacker
What folks don't realize is how Microsoft's economic behavior has transfered Billions from the government, pension funds and other companies to their company by a variety of means, all unethical and/or illegal. See:
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Microsoft is wanting to put luxury (meaning not necessary) software on my phone, to let me make "free" (nothing is free, remember?) calls from my cell phone, so long as I am near a WiFi hotspot, that is tied into microsoft's network (assuredly at another cost)?
How, exactly, is this better than me just flipping open my Cingular phone, from anywhere within reach of their network, dialing any number in the country I want, and not paying a extra dime for it over my plan cost?
Sell MORE Pocket PC than competing smart phones, or we'll launch free voice-over-WiFi?
As of qtopia 2.2, qtopia already has this functionality... (With plugable back ends due for qtopia 4.x)
It has a screen, keyboard and in some cases a pointing device. It has storage, and many computers these days -- especially laptops -- have an antenna. Mobile phones run WinCE, PDAs run WinCE, computers run WinCE. Mobile phone == computer. Clear on that?
Microsoft sell computer OSes, in fact have an economic monopoly on them. Microsoft have been slapped down (well, slapped on the wrist in the USA) for bundling other products with their OS (MSIE and WMP being two specific examples) to force it into peoples' hands, thus heading off competitors. Tangent have just sued Microsoft for damages from non-compliance with said slapping-down. Microsoft are convicted anti-trust violators, there is no question of that in said lawsuit. Clear on that?
Why should bundling a (doubtless proprietary and DRMmed to the gills) VoIP product in exactly the same way be any different from bundling WMP or MSIE?
It certainly flies in the face of the spirit if not the letter of their existing antitrust convictions. If they released a genuinely platform-agnostic H.323 application, then they would have no problem. Chances of that? Ahuk, ahuk.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
One assignment, problem solved, that'll be $20 and take the yak of your choice.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...depending on how you set it up.
My wireless router still works just fine from 100m down the street and through a wall, which is why I suppress SSID broadcasting and WEP104 encrypt it. When my ISP is down, I borrow my neighbour's connection with two clicks, as his ADSL router is also wireless but he hasn't locked it down.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
All you need is a wifi spot.
I currently have a Telstra Wireless broadband account (i live in Bris) at home, does this mean if i had a windows type phone i could drop my mobile carrier all together (or make it very, very cheap)?
I always assumed that to use this kind of thing via mobile I would still have to pay a mobile provider, and _then_ pay a 'data' charge for all of the WAP data I use (to make skype calls).
Does this sound right?
With the new UMA (Unlicensed Wireless Access) phones (Nokia 6136, Motorola A910) the move to wireless VoIP is inevitable. If you have a mobile phone that can switch seamlessly to Wi-fi when available, the game is over. You only need GSM or CDMA service as a backup option when there's no Wi-Fi and for call forwarding so people can reach you. All other things you can do over Wi-Fi connection. You just have to have VoIP client sitting in your mobile phone. If you already have free Wi-Fi in the office and at home, public Wi-Fi network around the city, that's all you need 90% of the time. As for Microsoft entrance it is good news, but nothing that important. There are a lot of good VoIP services that can readily be ported to Pocket PC, Symbian or Java and run on any mobile phone. If you can do it with Office great. But the same can be said for Skype, Gtalk and others. http://www.unwiredview.com/2006/02/20/nokia-6136-m otorola-a910-cell-phones-uma/
Free?
First count all your fingers,
then count all your toes,
and then your relatives...