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
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
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!
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.
...from the Microsoft internal dictionary:
Innovation (noun) The act of poorly imitating the most hyped current technology and passing it off as your own.
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.
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/
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?
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.
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!
I can't wait.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
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.)