Slashdot Mirror
Skype Releases Open SDK
An anonymous reader writes "SkypeKit gives Linux developers access to core functionality, allowing Linux developers to add video, calling, and instant messaging features to desktop applications. The SDK also comes with the freshly royalty-free SILK codec for high-end audio. Skype is hoping that the inclusion of SILK will popularize the codec, extending its reach. Currently, the SkypeKit beta is only available for Linux on an invite-only basis, with Windows and Mac versions planned in coming weeks. The SDK does not cover Android or Mac, an odd choice considering the announcement of SkypeKit championed itself for extending the functionality of Skype to multiple platforms and devices. Including smartphones in the SDK seems like an obvious move." Ars Technica has a rundown, too.
Using SkypeOut as a trunk in Asterisk would make them a little bit of cash. Otherwise, I can't really say I know what their "normal" business model ever was.
Skype has products that they charge by the minute for.
Every single thing they do doesn't have to be a profit center. Some of it can just help build the brand.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Are they hoping for people to use Skype technologies everywhere, so that more people will start paying Skype for the commercial/paid offerings they have?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS
Is SkypeKit ‘open’? What will you restrict?
The topic of openness is often debated and its definition can mean different things to different people. For starters, we believe in an open Internet and open standards. We are adopting an open approach meaning we are releasing APIs and enabling others to use SkypeKit and apply it in new ways. But, SkypeKit won’t be opened up to every single use case that developers dream up. For example, our license terms prohibit using SkypeKit for gambling or adult-themed applications.
Think of SkypeKit as a "headless" version of Skype – that is, a Skype client with no user interface that runs invisibly.
How is this even remotely close to open ? As far as I can see it's still just a binary blob!
Given that their definition of "open" seems to be "Why yes, you are welcome to make your application dependent on our proprietary binary and network through this set of defined interfaces, at least on such platforms as we have blessed for the purpose." I'm assuming that Skype is operating on the assumption that they will pick up some additional customers for their commercial offerings who might have been put off by having to use the Skype client itself.
It is also possible, given the omission of android, that they also hope to have their embedded version be something that companies have to pay for in order to integrate with their products(just as Flash was free on the desktop but licensed for inclusion in embedded devices, back before steve stole their lunch money)
Skype's problem is that developing a version of Skype that works on the various popular (and not so popular) versions of Linux is difficult. The Linux market is small enough, and fractured enough, that Skype would just as soon not even try. Unfortunately, Skype is concerned that, if left to its own devices, the Free Software community is large enough to build and popularize a Skype alternative that could compete with Skype. It has certainly done that sort of thing before.
So Skype is providing a SDK that would allow Open Source hackers the ability to build there own GUI front ends for Skype's service. This neatly solves the problem of creating a Linux client that works everywhere, as the preferred method for integrating software into a distribution in the Free Software world is to simply provide source. The idea is to get the Open Source hackers to work out the tricky bits like figuring out which API allows access to the web cam, and which API should be used for audio input/output. The folks working on the various distributions know how this is done, and Skype (apparently) does not.
This is a win for Skype because they get some help in creating Linux clients, and it is theoretically a win for the Open Source community as they get a working Skype client. This still leaves the Free Software guys, the ones that won't use Skype no matter how slick it is, because it is proprietary, to build their own competing service. Their initial reaction would probably be to leverage the work done by the Open Source guys. My guess is that Skype will try and make it so that the license on their SDK will not allow that. However, this is likely to be easier said than done, and that probably explains why the SDK has not actually been released yet. Skype is probably working on the proper license that will allow them to use the Free Software libraries that they need to use, while making it impossible for the Free Software guys to use software created to work with their SDK.
I don't see why, Skype are pretty expensive compared to the various SIP providers out there which Asterisk already supports natively... And with an open protocol like SIP you actually have a choice of providers.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Skype can win if it's ubiquitous (ie, de-facto standard) even if FaceTime is really open where it appears not to be.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
This is a win for Skype because they get some help in creating Linux clients, and it is theoretically a win for the Open Source community as they get a working Skype client.
Skype already provides a working Linux client here. I have used it on both popular (Ubuntu) and not-as-popular (Gentoo and Arch) distributions and it works great.
The idea is to get the Open Source hackers to work out the tricky bits like figuring out which API allows access to the web cam, and which API should be used for audio input/output. The folks working on the various distributions know how this is done, and Skype (apparently) does not.
Skype's official client uses V4L2 for video (the only current video API) and ALSA for audio (the most popular audio API.) I'd say they have it figured out pretty well.
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
Everybody use it because everybody else use it, because it's so incredibly easy to get started with and most of them don't even know what the word "proprietary" means.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Skype is:
a) Much cheaper now, they have several A-Z ratecards, some of the reasonably cheap (I have good carriers to compare, their prices are somewhat similar to Verizon(SIP), Voipjet (IAX2) and Minutehub(SIP) on many routes, and cheaper on some, and they have a reasonable quality)
b) They do provide SIP access. I have them configured with sip.skype.com in several asterisk servers.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Why would you want to use a limited and broken protocol only implemented by one company, and which specifications aren't even published?
I use SIP and my mother uses SIP because I gave her a pre-configured hardware SIP phone and even plugged it in for her. Everyone else wants me to install Skype NOW. That's why you would want to implement the broken protocol.
Nobody but my mother calls me using SIP, even though SIP:*8967100@sip.kristinehamnk1.com is published numerous places on the Internets (don't need the after @ part if you abuse SipBroker), everyone wants me to start using Facebook & install Skype. That's what the world has come to. You don't need SIP to talk to yourself and that's about all you can do with it, if you have friends then you'll find they all use Facebook and Skype and other evil.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation