Skype Officially Available For Android

At last! by metageek · 2010-10-05 00:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

At last! but how soon are carriers going to block its traffic?

--
metageek

Re:At last! by gl4ss · 2010-10-05 01:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

proper carriers? never. in usa 3g use is disabled, apparently. outside of usa 3g is a go. blame the carriers if you're in usa - and also skype, since skype could have released it in a totally connection-neutral form. but they didn't.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:At last! by generalhavok · 2010-10-05 01:25 · Score: 3, Informative

If I recall, no US carrier has ever allowed VOIP traffic on 3g. On my AT&T iPhone, Skype has to use WiFi. Appears to be the same case on my Verizon Droid too. I recently went on a trip to Russia. I bought a cheap SIM card with a data plan for my (jailbroken) iPhone, and just out of curiosity, I launched Skype, it it let me place a call right over 3g! That saved me a lot of money for calling my family back home. Not to mention that cell phone plans and data is cheaper there than in the US too. Amazing what some real competition in a market can do.
Re:At last! by AltairDusk · 2010-10-05 01:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe some serious infrastructure pounding from things like video calling will inspire customers to get the infrastructure they've been lagging behind on in place faster.
Re:At last! by AltairDusk · 2010-10-05 01:40 · Score: 1

If you're on iPhone and you're jailbroken get 3g Unrestrictor (I think that's what they're calling it now) off of Cydia. Once you've used it to fool Skype into thinking it's on WiFi you can make all the voip calls you want. It's the one thing I miss after making the switch to Android, I haven't found something comparable to it yet.
Re:At last! by digitalchinky · 2010-10-05 02:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

The right decision? You actually support carriers that drip feed you bandwidth because they've long since gotten used to twisting every last cent from your wallet - just so you can have the pleasure of consuming ever decreasing amounts of a service that is active 24/7 regardless of actual use.
Understand the tech behind the scenes and you'll be outraged - think executive golden parachutes rather than infrastructure upgrades.
I live in some random Asian country, over 3.5G I routinely see 200+ kilobytes per second. No caps, unlimited, all for about $27 USD per month. Technology is not the problem here.
Re:At last! by anUnhandledException · 2010-10-05 02:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Meanwhile AT&T collects record revenue per iPhone subscriber while paying the least of all carriers on infrastructure (per subscriber).
So the solution is to not allow high data applications to go with these high cost data plans.
All profit and no cost. Aren't "free markets" wonderful.
Re:At last! by mldi · 2010-10-05 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, that's curious, because Sprint seems to have no problem with it (Qik, Fring).

--
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
Re:At last! by DrgnDancer · 2010-10-05 02:07 · Score: 1

I think better to say "especially in NYC". It seems that the largest metro areas are among the hardest hit by this problem. Bandwidth issues on cell networks (AT&T seems worst affected, but all carriers are to some extent) seem to follow a bell curve with the highest and lowest population centers at either end. Mid population areas (like 500K-1 million people) seem to get the best service. I have quite a nice signal quality in Huntsville, Alabama; and when visiting Boston recently I was fine other than in the city proper where I got occasional signal drops.
I think the problem is that when you have as many people as use the cell networks in Chicago, New York, and LA there's simply not enough bandwidth in the airwaves; no matter how many towers you put up. Each provider only has so many channels, and each channel can only mux so many signals before you start to see degradation. Can anyone with more wireless expertise than I have confirm or deny this?

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:At last! by xaxa · 2010-10-05 02:20 · Score: 1

I live in some random Asian country, over 3.5G I routinely see 200+ kilobytes per second. No caps, unlimited, all for about $27 USD per month. Technology is not the problem here.
I've just done a speed test on my phone (at speedtest.net) and got an impressive 1.59Mb/s (200kB/s). (Or is that normal? I have no idea, I've never done this on my phone before.)
The trouble is, at lunchtime I couldn't browse the web, since everyone else round here (London, but about halfway out from the centre) was evidently trying to do the same. Presumably this is a deficiency with the network (Orange), but it's not something I researched before signing up.
Re:At last! by GameboyRMH · 2010-10-05 02:36 · Score: 1

If that works it should also be possible to make Skype calls from an N900.
But transitioning from using cell providers' numbers to using Skype (or Google Voice) is hardly an improvement, although it could be a decent stopgap solution. The problem is it's still controlled entirely by one company. We need to transition to SIP, ideally using SIP URIs on a domain you control. That would make voice calling as free as email.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:At last! by darjen · 2010-10-05 02:41 · Score: 1

Last year before I got my Droid, I used pure voip/sip with gizmo over ATT 3g with my nokia e71. Quality was severely lacking though, not nearly good enough for regular use. Not sure if they throttled that traffic or what. Never tried it with symbian's skype client as that application just plain sucked.
Re:At last! by MobyDisk · 2010-10-05 03:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

If using more bandwidth costs the cell carriers more money, perhaps they should charge people for using more bandwidth. This is the only industry I've ever heard of where when demand exceeds supply, they simply refuse to increase capacity.
Quiz: If a bean farmer harvests 1 million beans per month, and they sell out the first day, which of the following would the bean farmer do?
A) Only sell beans to customers who use specific kinds of plates. This would limit the number of beans customers demanded to an amount they can provide. Since there is no way for the seller to know what kind of plates people have, they must pressure manufacturers of plates to enforce the rules. When pressed on the issue, complain that the only way to produce more beans would be to buy more land and seeds, which are expensive.
B) Buy more land and seeds and produce more beans.
Any reasonable farmer would choose option B. They would put together a plan, see how much more land they could afford to buy, and how many more beans they can produce on that land. For reasons beyond my understanding, telecom companies choose option A. They tell people that 3G has limited bandwidth, and limit their customers to using it for specific applications. But of course, 3G has no idea what application is using the bandwidth, so they make the software refuse to use the 3G connection even though it can use it and no one would ever know. Option B would be to build more cell towers and upgrade their bandwidth.
Re:At last! by Ihateturtlenecks · 2010-10-05 03:48 · Score: 1

I support providers being realistic, which AT&T wasn't at first. Believe me, I try and steer people away from them, but their issue was poor planning, not some kind of corporate undercutting.
And a CEO's retirement plan has little if anything to do with the product being put out. Employee benefits are usually sacrificed first. I do understand the tech and corporate infrastructure. "Can we do it?" is only one question you have to ask.
Is your "random Asian country" one of the ones that experiences rolling black outs and/or has to ration power? Is it one of the ones that the major companies in North America, Europe and Japan consider bonus points and therefor can sell their wares after they've already made their costs domestically? If so, you really can't compare it to a major city in the US, Canada, Europe, or Japan
Re:At last! by kikito · 2010-10-05 03:50 · Score: 1

Yeah, Japan is pretty random sometimes.
Re:At last! by swb · 2010-10-05 03:54 · Score: 1

What happens when you can't buy more land or more seeds, or the cost of more land and more seeds exceeds the return on investment? Or perhaps, more darkly, what happens when you follow more-land-more-seeds iteratively and then the market for beans collapses?
I can only guess, but I suspect that adding cell sites isn't quite like plugging in low-budget wifi boxes around a large building until you can get a signal everywhere. Just siting the equipment can be a challenge, especially in a crowded and expensive urban area. Adding backhaul links isn't cheap and I suspect the more sites you add in a narrow geographic area, the more complex it gets meshing them.
I also suspect that LTE plays into this as well -- large investments in 3G could delay LTE rollout further, making it slower to launch and complicating consumer decisions about handsets not to mention manufacturer commitment to producing them.
Re:At last! by F34nor · 2010-10-05 04:01 · Score: 1

God I hate oligopolies.
Re:At last! by davester666 · 2010-10-05 04:04 · Score: 1

You missed:
C) Raise prices and make customers sign long-term contracts with large penalty fee's, to get an 'unlimited' supply of beans. Then put all the beans in a pile in the middle of a parking lot and tell their customers to have at it.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:At last! by Progman3K · 2010-10-05 04:06 · Score: 1

[...]each channel can only mux so many signals before you start to see degradation. Can anyone with more wireless expertise than I have confirm or deny this?
Claude Shannon nods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:At last! by spidercoz · 2010-10-05 04:26 · Score: 1

Employee benefits are usually sacrificed first.
Yeah, those of the peons who do the actual work. The execs in the upper floors? Bullshit. They'll drive the company into the ground before you pry benefits from their cold, reptilian claws. We've watched it happen many times these past few years.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Re:At last! by m85476585 · 2010-10-05 04:32 · Score: 1

I don't think carriers are running out of bandwidth yet. A better analogy would be that you are a farmer on an island that can grow a fixed amount of beans. Demand for beans has historically been low, but there were business customers willing to pay a lot for beans, so you grow them. They wanted to be able to get beans anywhere, and there is an extremely short shelf life, so you grow beans everywhere. This leaves you with a surplus of beans, so you want to find ways to get rid of them. In a free market, this would lead to a very low price for beans, but since you are in an oligopoly and have secret meetings with the other bean farmers on the island, you decide that you should push everyone to pay $30/month for "unlimited" bean subscriptions to feed the growing droid population on the island. But the supply of beans isn't really unlimited. When demand is low enough the supply is virtually unlimited, but as demand increases, the supply does become limited and you can't easily grow more beans. Instead of capping everyone's bean use, or charging per bean, you just do things to try to limit beans, such as not allowing droids to eat too many beans at once. This works for now, but as the droid population continues to grow, you will run out of beans, or at least fertilizer and water, and you will have to start imposing caps. To keep up with future demand, you are working on engineering "4G" beans that provide more energy. There are some initial costs to start growing them (buying seeds, changing equipment), but once you are growing them, they don't really cost you much more than 3G beans. Yet when you start to roll out 4G beans, you charge people more for them (and still sell "unlimited" amounts).

If you do try to cap bean use, you want to set a high cap to compete with the other farmers that have "unlimited" bean plans. You choose 5 gigaBeans per month, which is more than most people will reasonable use, but hopefully enough to keep extreme users from depleting your bean supply. You know that if everyone takes 5 GB per month, you won't have enough beans, and you are afraid of what might happen when you look at the trend growth of the droid population. Maybe you will change your pricing scheme to something with lower caps and a slightly lower price, but you will still end up making more money as bean users buying from other farmers who don't exceed your smaller caps switch to your farm. But this switching doesn't happen quickly because back in the early days of bean farming, the bean farmers all decided, in a secret meeting, to lock everyone into two year bean contracts.

I could go on, but you get the point. Cell phone carriers are not in a great position themselves, yet they still try to extract as much money from people as possible (and do a good job of it). I think the carrier industry's business model in the US has deep flaws that affect both the consumers and the carriers, but as long as the carriers are making money, this isn't likely to change soon.
Re:At last! by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2010-10-05 04:41 · Score: 1

What happens when you can't buy more land or more seeds, or the cost of more land and more seeds exceeds the return on investment? Or perhaps, more darkly, what happens when you follow more-land-more-seeds iteratively and then the market for beans collapses?
I suspect, without really knowing, that cell carriers have been repeatedly burned by having to put up towers and pay for infrastructure, and then being unable to raise prices to pay for it because of competition. Cell access should be a fairly elastic demand, because there are fallbacks--home phones, home wireless, free wireless from businesses, phone booths (they still have those, don't they?), etc.
It doesn't justify the douchebaggery re: prices and control, but I'm pretty sure that yeah, it is expensive, and if they have a record of being burned, they'll be much less likely to add towers to their network.
Re:At last! by mounthood · 2010-10-05 05:16 · Score: 1

If using more bandwidth costs the cell carriers more money, perhaps they should charge people for using more bandwidth. This is the only industry I've ever heard of where when demand exceeds supply, they simply refuse to increase capacity.
Oil?

Quiz: If an oil farmer harvests 1 million barrels per month, and they sell out the first day, which of the following would the oil farmer do?
Answer: Create a cartel to restrict supply and increase prices.

--
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Re:At last! by jhanderson · 2010-10-05 05:39 · Score: 1

I think any reasonable farmer would go with:
C) Kick himself for not charging more for the beans on the first day. Obviously, he wasn't charging enough for them if they sold out that fast.
Re:At last! by Ihateturtlenecks · 2010-10-05 05:40 · Score: 1

Cuz Ed from Receiving brings in the investors.
Re:At last! by lowrydr310 · 2010-10-05 05:52 · Score: 1

If I recall, no US carrier has ever allowed VOIP traffic on 3g
I've used nimbuzz on my android device and successfully made VOIP calls (through SkypeOut) over Sprint's 3G. The only problem is that the delay was horrible. Nimbuzz also offers a credit-based VOIP service.
Re:At last! by SETIGuy · 2010-10-05 05:53 · Score: 1

Actually, you can blame Skype alone. Fring has been able to make Skype calls over any network source on Android for quite a while. I'm not that pleased with the quality of Skype calls over 3g, but that's a network latency issue, not a Skype issue.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:At last! by TemporalBeing · 2010-10-05 05:54 · Score: 1

Cell access should be a fairly elastic demand, because there are fallbacks--home phones, home wireless, free wireless from businesses, phone booths (they still have those, don't they?), etc.
The US Cell Market is not elastic by any means. New contracts are typically 1 or 2 years; and plans are setup to encourage friends and family to have the same network. Additionally, only AT&T and T-Mobile use Sim cards in their phones (you can get international phones for Verizon, etc. with SIM cards to use when you travel internationally, but they do you no good at home), thus locking people in further. Add to it that the carriers are the prime sellers for phones and it's not a nice market.

Honestly, the carriers should be forbidden from (1) selling phones period, (2) forced to focus on the network and services they provide, and (3) from doing the contracts; that's the only way the market will become more fluid. Sadly that won't ever happen as they have their hands in gov't enough to prevent gov't from forcing it to happen.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:At last! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-10-05 05:59 · Score: 1

If so, you really can't compare it to a major city in the US, Canada, Europe, or Japan
Skype over 3G is not available in US only. In the meantime, major cities in Canada, Europe and Japan (and elsewhere) seem to be doing fine, without their cell networks melting down.
Hmm. Could it just be that this has absolutely no technical reasons, and is solely due to exclusivity agreement with Verizon?.. ~
Re:At last! by SETIGuy · 2010-10-05 06:01 · Score: 1

You are correct. Growing more beans would cost money. Selling the same beans twenty five times just makes money without costing anything.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:At last! by Bourdain · 2010-10-05 06:10 · Score: 1

If using more bandwidth costs the cell carriers more money, perhaps they should charge people for using more bandwidth. This is the only industry I've ever heard of where when demand exceeds supply, they simply refuse to increase capacity.
I suspect the hesitance to have prices mimic costs is that fact that the [oligopolistic] carriers don't want to lose money from one of their highest revenue users who incidentally use very little bandwidth -- corporate blackberries. In fact they are designed to be use data minimally for most users, e.g. only text parts of emails are downloaded at first, email is push rather than pull. If the carriers actually had a system which tracked costs, the $5 verizon "feature phone" plan would cost $50 and the $50 BES blackberry account would cost $5 and accordingly substantially screw with their highly precise and profitable price discrimination. Granted, they could have a segmented system where blackberries existed outside of it, but why rock the boat when they're making tons of money and only stand to lose it in this situation.

Keep in mind, all of this price discrimination is made possible by the carriers being able to identify the phone you are using and how you are using it since they only allow their phones on the network generally. GSM has some minimal exceptions to this, but even if you bring your own equipment, they might have a database of its IMEI and charge by that and/or identify that you're accessing an exchange server/skype... Don't get me started on MEID/ESN databases for CDMA, it's even more despotic

Also, more specifically in this context re: 3G on skype, consider that's it's not a data issue per se, but more a money issue for minutes, after all, look into how verizon blackberries handle skype traffic and minutes in the context of high value plans...

My two cents
Re:At last! by Splab · 2010-10-05 06:49 · Score: 1

You are kidding right?
Knock yourself out if you want to Skype on our system. Data traffic is "free" for the first GB if you pay a monthly fee of about $30, that gives you about 1000/30 = 330 minutes of talk for $30 (or the same as you are paying for GSM to GSM in our system anyways - so you'd lose money if you don't max out your data usage). After the 330 minutes are up you are paying $1 per MB or in other words 50 cents on the minute. What you then have to remember is the system isn't designed to QoS your Skype, so not only are you paying more, you will have higher rate of dropped calls - but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Oh and before you think of something smart like Skype when roaming, data tarif can be as high as $15/MB.
In short, if you want to fleece yourself, carriers are not going to complain. //Only in one case would it make sense, when calling from your mobile to some foreign country, but still we wouldn't care. We don't make anything on those calls anyways (thanks to EU and their messing in the affairs of carriers).
Re:At last! by Splab · 2010-10-05 06:55 · Score: 1

The math I wrote is wrong. Skype is half a meg per minute, giving you 2000 minutes in theory. So you could actually save a bit of money provided you don't talk too much; but still we wouldn't care, you are paying us for the data traffic and we still make money on your inbound minutes since Skype can't take the phonenumber, granted you aren't the one paying us, we still carry your traffic and make money on you.
Re:At last! by swb · 2010-10-05 07:30 · Score: 1

I'd like to see the FCC require a common wireless standard that all carriers had to use and prohibit locking of a handset to any particular carrier network.
This would automatically void carrier exclusivity and basically eliminate hardware lock-in.
Re:At last! by ichthus · 2010-10-05 08:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Did you get caught... between the moon and NYC?

--
sig: sauer
Re:At last! by ichthus · 2010-10-05 08:32 · Score: 1

No, but the engineers do... unless it's a vaporware situation.

--
sig: sauer
Re:At last! by SETIGuy · 2010-10-05 08:39 · Score: 1

Fring went and made a liar out of me. An update they shipped today appears to have removed the Skype plugin entirely.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:At last! by Threni · 2010-10-06 00:49 · Score: 1

There's a legal problem. They might sort it out. You never know - Skype might release an Android client that doesn't suck. How do I log out? How do I quit? Why is the app so big? Why can't I move it to the SD card? Why do the official versions of these sorts of things (Skype, Facebook, Twitter etc) always suck loads more than unofficial versions?
Re:At last! by Threni · 2010-10-06 00:56 · Score: 1

Orange sucks. I work in central london and there is no data most of the time. They're merging with TMobile so perhaps they'll sort out the masts, in case that helps at all.
Re:At last! by Ihateturtlenecks · 2010-10-06 02:47 · Score: 1

Engineers don't bring in investors. They use company resources to produce product that may attract clients. Investors want to see product, a healthy company, good marketing etc etc. You need leadership to get that stuff done. I'm not saying they aren't valuable, if you are a manufacturing company, you obviously need them. But, they make product, not the company. Apple wasn't a player until Jobs left his garage and he didn't do that alone.

One step closer? by Bill_the_Engineer · 2010-10-05 00:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

One step closer to the carriers being just... carriers.

Let me introduce you to the wonderful world of pay-as-you-go data plans with an android phone.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

Re:One step closer? by AltairDusk · 2010-10-05 01:42 · Score: 1

If enough customers defect to other carriers rather than renew their contract to AT&T and Verizon's new tiered data garbage they will have to drop the idea. I don't have much hope in this happening but when my renewal comes up I will do my part.
Re:One step closer? by Trufagus · 2010-10-05 02:22 · Score: 1

Huh?
Pay-as-you-go, otherwise known as you just pay for what you use, is the solution.
If everyone has unlimited plans then the carriers will put huge restrictions on your use (e.g. tethering), mainly because they have to in order to maintain a sane network, but also in order to prevent us from using services that threaten them (e.g. Skype over 3G).
Give me metered service at a reasonable rate and I will use things like Skype all the time, but I will be forced to switch to Wi-Fi when I want to download Blue-ray movies (poor me).
We want the carriers to end up like the water and electricity companies. Do you think they should provide unlimited service at a flat rate?
Re:One step closer? by Bill_the_Engineer · 2010-10-05 02:43 · Score: 1

We want the carriers to end up like the water and electricity companies. Do you think they should provide unlimited service at a flat rate?
Yes.
It really doesn't cost them that much. You act like they have to actually spend money on every bit they move. Instead they are using metered service as both a way to make profit off of their fixed expense and to social engineer their customers into not using too much of their fixed capacity.
I tend to view metered service as a scam. Like when you go to a car dealership to buy a car. You want to talk total price and they want to talk monthly payments.
Of course you have companies like Virgin Mobile which has an unlimited data plan that requires no contract and is only $40/month.
If more people took advantage of this, other companies will look for ways to offer the same service for $35/month. Without a contract artificially making you a loyal servant, you'll be free to move to a carrier that has the less restrictions for the price.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Re:One step closer? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 03:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

What carrier do you use for pay-as-you-go data? and how much do you pay? (if this is in the US)
Re:One step closer? by RobDude · 2010-10-05 03:46 · Score: 1

Here's the problem - everyone wants unlimited data at an unbelievably fast speed, for free. It's the same mentality that allows people to pirate movies, music, and software. Entitlement. I want it, why can't I have it? The law? Ha! I'll take as much as I can get and complain when it doesn't live up to my expectations.
Get ready for the long list of justifications like, 'It *should* be free and unlimited' or 'It doesn't cost them hardly anything!' or 'My phone has their stupid logo on it, that's free advertising, I shouldn't have to pay' or 'Paying more because I use more is *unfair* to me, because I want a lower price'.
Re:One step closer? by Timmmm · 2010-10-05 04:34 · Score: 1

3 do a data-only contract. £5/month for 3 GB.
Re:One step closer? by schmiddy · 2010-10-05 05:32 · Score: 1

Let me introduce you to the wonderful world of pay-as-you-go data plans with an android phone.
Well, that's exactly what I use: T-Mobile pay by the minute, with an old G1 Android phone (the first android phone that came out, I think). The phone was about $100 used on ebay, and I pay about $5-10/month for 50-150 minutes of usage per month (the going rate for a 1000 minute, 1-year card is $90 on eBay). It sure is cheap, but dunno about "wonderful" - no 3G data, for one thing. And the phone is somehow designed to *require* a 3G-capable SIM card when you activate it with your Google account, otherwise it pretends it can't login to your google account via WiFi. So you really need to have a buddy with a T-Mobile SIM card and a 3G plan for this to work. I chose T-Mobile because the per-minute rate was the cheapest I could find that would give me a reasonable phone choice and coverage.
In summary: cheap: yes. good: yes. wonderful: not quite

--
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Re:One step closer? by AHuxley · 2010-10-05 14:43 · Score: 1

They are happy to pay by the month. Yes "It doesn't cost them hardly anything" once the towers are up and networks are in place.
In theory they should be expanding backhaul and their data/codecs over time to offer users more, not lock them into some rust belt.
Why should a US consumer not enjoy what their gov and corps push for: Freedom, less cartels and real g3/4 or next gen tech.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Cool by Pojut · 2010-10-05 01:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

It would be interesting to see how this affects battery life. I love my Eris, but the battery life on the stock battery is pretty suck. Would something like Skype drain a battery faster than calling someone using the 'phone' portion of the device?

--
Living With a Nerd

Re:Cool by bemymonkey · 2010-10-05 01:21 · Score: 2, Informative

I haven't measured power consumption during actual calls, but during standby the Skype app seems very well behaved. According to Currentwidget, my phone draws about 5mA during standby with Skype running... same as without Skype. :)
Re:Cool by Sockatume · 2010-10-05 01:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Depending on your distance from the tower and the access point, it could be quite a lot less. I've certainly had situations where I've had a very poor cell signal and strong wi-fi, and thus the wi-fi has been more reliable and more power-thrifty.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:Cool by whisper_jeff · 2010-10-05 01:56 · Score: 1

If Skype on the iPhone is any indication, yes, it will drain battery life a great deal faster than using the stock phone. And, if you're using it over wifi (which I believe is the only way it's currently available on Android), that will also probably result in your device heating up considerably more than using the phone as well. Again, if my experience using it on my iPhone is any indication (and I see no real reason for the Android version to be significantly different...).
Re:Cool by tlhIngan · 2010-10-05 03:24 · Score: 3, Informative

It would be interesting to see how this affects battery life. I love my Eris, but the battery life on the stock battery is pretty suck. Would something like Skype drain a battery faster than calling someone using the 'phone' portion of the device?
Yes, but mostly during a call, and a tiny bit less when idle. When the phone is idle, the main CPU is basically stopped and drawing very little power. Having Skype in the background does nothing to affect this as it's also waiting for a control datagram and thus blocked waiting.
However, the phone may be maintaining a data channel waiting for the datagram to come - this can involve a bit more power from the modem to keep the channel alive, and a tiny bit of main CPU to handle higher layer data connection administrivia (keep-alives and the like).
But during a call, the power goes up a lot. During a normal voice call, the main CPU again shuts down as it's not needed for the most part and the audio is routed direct to the modem where it's compressed, encoded and sent over the air by dedicated hardware. Using something like Skype, however, means the audio has to go tot he main CPU, where the Skype application then encodes it into packets, and those packets are then passed to the OS (also running on the main CPU) as network data. It goes down the network stack, then down to the data port of the modem where the modem then packages it for over the air. But an active data connection also costs more power, and the main CPU is active during a VoIP call but idle during a normal voice call, both of which add significant drain to the battery.
If you're on the phone a lot, VoIP may require you to carry an extra battery. If you're like me who hardly makes a call longer than 30 seconds a couple of times per day, you won't notice the extra drain.
Re:Cool by hazydave · 2010-10-05 04:12 · Score: 1

Actually, not so much, IF you're using Wifi. The amount of processing of voice is tiny... smartphones do this in software on the application processor these days anyway.
The real power drain during a call is the wireless link. A handset can put out up to a watt of RF power, as instructed by the cell tower. This is why your call time can vary wildly by location; when you're close to the a cell, the power is much reduced.
Wifi is held to 100mW or less. So a call over Wifi is going to use much less power... if you're close enough to a Wifi hot spot to make the call. If you did it over Bluetooth, even better... most cell phones implement class 3 Bluetooth, which has a maximum output of 1mW. This is why playing audio from your phone over Bluetooth uses far less power than playing via an analog output.
It's curious how the various Skype implementations work. I've had Skype on my Droid for quite some time. It works over the cellular network, but NOT over Wifi, for no good reason I can figure. But it's the special Verizon version, so when I make a cellular call over Skype, it will go via the Verizon network if it's local, the Skype network if it's phone-to-computer or overseas.
The new Skype for Android also has issues -- some bugs reported, and it doesn't support video. Great technology, but the implementations are still lacking.

--
-Dave Haynie
Re:Cool by Eil · 2010-10-05 04:26 · Score: 1

I am not a phone engineer, but I would imagine wifi would be cheaper in terms of power budget. Compare having to transmit a continuous signal to a receiver 20ft away as opposed to 2 miles away.

More detail... by GraemeDonaldson · 2010-10-05 01:02 · Score: 4, Informative

If you're in the US, only WiFi for you (presumably doesn't apply if you have a Verizon device with their bundled version)

If you're in China or Japan, no Skype for you!

Android 2.1+ required

Minimum screen res of 320x480 required

Also, it's 9MB, there's a link to the .apk for those of us with metered data plans: com.skype.raider.apk.

--
I think, therefore I am. I think?

Re:More detail... by zero.kalvin · 2010-10-05 01:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am using on Android 2.0 , It says nothing on 2.1 being required.
Re:More detail... by kzharv · 2010-10-05 01:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Why no skype in Japan?
I see no such restriction after installing on 2 phones here in Tokyo....
Re:More detail... by BlackCreek · 2010-10-05 02:01 · Score: 1

The Skype official blog says 2.1 is required...
Re:More detail... by Excelsior · 2010-10-05 02:24 · Score: 1

A link to an apk on a random file hosting site?!? Seriously? If you did the same thing with an exe you'd be flamed and hung from the Slashdot rafters. It should be the same with an apk, but everyone seems somehow fine with installing apks from random places with who knows what nasty code buried inside. One of these days everyone is going to get pwned by one of these hosted apk files.
Re:More detail... by zero.kalvin · 2010-10-05 07:57 · Score: 1

I know what both of those are saying. The point is, it works on 2.0
Re:More detail... by angus77 · 2010-10-05 11:24 · Score: 1

Did you dwonload it from Skype or from RapidShare? The Skype site won't let me download it.

Just tried it and there's a big gotcha by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 01:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

No 3G calling from the US---curse you Verizon!

Re:Just tried it and there's a big gotcha by Yvanhoe · 2010-10-05 02:59 · Score: 1

Once again, someone is not providing a real internet access.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Just tried it and there's a big gotcha by victorhooi · 2010-10-05 03:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

heya,
Why not try a VPN provider, like StrongVPN, and use it with your Android phone?
You should be able to tunnel VoIP/Skype through this.
Cheers,
Victor
Re:Just tried it and there's a big gotcha by SETIGuy · 2010-10-05 06:20 · Score: 1

You don't need to. Skype through other Android apps works fine. Verizon enforces this policy by requesting that the app authors disable VOIP. If the app authors don't do so, Verizon doesn't do anything to stop them from distributing the app.
Just get Fring and call through it rather than using the Skype app. The only thing you lose is that your Skype contact list doesn't get integrated with your phone contact list in Fring. Your phone contacts are visible in Fring, but your Fring/Skype contacts don't show up on the phone contact list.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:Just tried it and there's a big gotcha by jonwil · 2010-10-05 12:26 · Score: 1

Simple solution, someone should write something that tricks the Skype app into thinking its connected to a WiFi network and not to 3G. Its been done for the iPhone so I see no reason it couldn't be done for Android.

access rights? by mercurized · 2010-10-05 01:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

I am still confused as of why that application wants access to all my accounts on the phone, and even wants to be able to use those other accounts as authentification method to some other unspecified purposes..

Re:access rights? by Vintermann · 2010-10-05 01:22 · Score: 1

I don't think it asks permission for what you think it does. It's two separate things its asks permission to do:
1. Read and write contacts
2. Gain some sort of recognition in Android's auth system. It may be that it registers itself as an authentication method (kind of like your google or facebook login can be used to identify you elsewhere), or that it makes use of such authentication services, I didn't look too closely. Either way, it's nothing to worry about.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:access rights? by RebootKid · 2010-10-05 04:41 · Score: 1

Still, I applaud mercurized for actually taking the time to look at the permissions requested, and think critically about them. We do this with apps we install on our PCs, why not on our phones?
Re:access rights? by lowrydr310 · 2010-10-05 05:56 · Score: 1

I don't mind the account access so much, but why does every friggin' app in the marketplace need coarse location data? As soon as I see that, I run away and don't look back. Give me a pay option so I can buy the good application and not have to share my location data with marketers.
Re:access rights? by i_b_don · 2010-10-05 07:01 · Score: 1

So they want who you are, who you know, where you are, what programs you're using, and the ability to do whatever they want on your phone. I dunno, that seems like a lot of access to me. What don't they want? I have to admit that I balked at giving that much access for skype, even though they are a "trusted" company in my eyes. (Trusted means big and unlikely to screw me over.)
Here's the official list of what they want:
Your personal information
read contact data, write contact data
Your location
coarse (network-based) location
Network communication
full internet access
Your accounts
act as an account authenticator, manage the accounts list, use the authentication credentials of an account
Storage
modify/delete SD card contents
Hardware controls
change your audio settings, record audio
phone calls
read phone state and identify
system tools
modify global system settings, prevent phone from sleeping, retrieve running applications, write sync settings

--
all language nazi's will burne in heil!

Skype? have had it for over two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 01:06 · Score: 1, Informative

I've had Skype on my android phone (HTC Incredible) for over 2 weeks. It came installed on it. So how is this news?
Checking the Market, I don't even see an upgrade for it.
So, once again, how is this news?

Trillian is the app that I keep looking for.

Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. by wannabe-retiree · 2010-10-05 01:10 · Score: 1

Verizon had an exclusive deal where they were the only carrier whose android phones could have skype.
Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 01:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Your skype is the Verizon blessed and hobbled version. It uses Verizon voice minutes for the first leg into the cloud. Therefore it's only useful in saving on international long distance charges. This new Skype can use WiFi.
Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. by Spad · 2010-10-05 01:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Trillian for Android (Beta)
Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. by generalhavok · 2010-10-05 06:30 · Score: 1

Your skype is the Verizon blessed and hobbled version. It uses Verizon voice minutes for the first leg into the cloud. Therefore it's only useful in saving on international long distance charges. This new Skype can use WiFi.
In my opinion, using the voice minutes for the first leg into the cloud severely cuts down on latency and improves call quality. I much prefer making calls with Skype on my Verizon phone than I prefer trying to make Skype calls over WiFi with my iPhone.
Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. by jrumney · 2010-10-05 13:26 · Score: 1

Checking the Market, I don't even see an upgrade for it.
The only way to upgrade bundled apps is through an firmware update. Market only shows updates for apps you downloaded from the Market in the first place.

So we like open source, but not open protocols? by anti-NAT · 2010-10-05 01:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why do the slashdot crowd rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?

--
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by _merlin · 2010-10-05 01:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because at the core, they're cheapskates. MS Office costs money while OpenOffice doesn't, so it's convenient to find other supporting reasons to hate MS Office. OTOH, they see Skype and think "free calls!" so all is forgiven.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Ihateturtlenecks · 2010-10-05 01:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because MS is a big, evil, multibillion dollar corporation, but Skype is a free and wonderful...and what? It's actually the property of a multibillion dollar corporation? And they just poached an executive from another multibillion dollar corporation in order to find more ways to draw revenue from their service? Damn. Actually, I think it has more to do with the perceived quality of MS's products and services. True or not, they have a reputation.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by forkazoo · 2010-10-05 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do the slashdot crowd rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?
It's not that we love closed protocols. We don't. We simply hate the phone company more.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by SpaghettiPattern · 2010-10-05 01:22 · Score: 1

Why do the slashdot crowd rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?
My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings. Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.
Therefore I implore you to blindly believe that MS be scum bags. As well as Darl McBride. And that most other creations of god are but meek.

Oh, and Skype has a very large installed base. So we want it. And then we will whine as soon as Skype takes advantage.

--

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Vintermann · 2010-10-05 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

In this case, the closed and proprietary VoIP protocol enables people to work around price discrimination on closed and proprietary wires.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Duradin · 2010-10-05 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Skype is a lot like Flash when it comes to slashbots.
Before Apple said "no Flash on our devices" Flash was absolutely worthless and evil.
As soon as Apple said no Flash on their devices Flash was a saint in the process of being martyred by evil tech-heathens.
So in any other context (or previous threads) Skype is the epitome of the corruptness and wastefulness (OMG it uses bandwidth even when you're not talking!!!) of closed source. Now that it is available to the droidbois it is the symbol of freedom, sticking to the (telecom) man.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by maxwell+demon · 2010-10-05 01:41 · Score: 1

And the open VoIP protocols don't?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by niftydude · 2010-10-05 01:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well I don't know about the rest of the slashdot crowd - but I always choose sip and open voip codecs over skype where possible - and every linux nerd I know with any street cred at all runs an asterisk pbx server in their home - even if they don't actually have anyone to call.

People here like to hang shit on nokia and symbian - but the nokia e-series of mobile phones have had working voip over 3g for a very long time.

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Albanach · 2010-10-05 01:43 · Score: 1

In this case, the closed and proprietary VoIP protocol enables people to work around price discrimination on closed and proprietary wires.
But surely there are decent SIP clients for Android? My 4 year old Nokia E Series can do native SIP voip calls over 3G or WIFI, integrating fully with the built in phonebook. I can select a number from the phone book and call it over the cellphone network or through my asterisk box at home. My cell phone can act as a local extension of the home phone system.
It doesn't do SIP based video calls, but as a phone it works a charm, and the functionality is standard.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by lorax · 2010-10-05 01:46 · Score: 1

I'd much rather use SIP, but I have had a lot of trouble with SIP to SIP calls when using different VOIP programs. I have had almost no luck with video over SIP, skype video works. This app doesn't have video so I probably won't use it much.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by shish · 2010-10-05 01:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why do the slashdot crowd
If you're going to generalise all of slashdot as a single entity with a single opinion, why not ask yourself? You are part of it :P

rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?
Personally I'm not so much anti-closed as anti-suck. Closedness sucks politically, so I generally prefer open; but in this case all the other VoIP products suck technically and to a much larger degree

--
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by elrous0 · 2010-10-05 01:50 · Score: 1

Because MS is an evil she-demon who is trying to suck our souls into eternal darkness, of course.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by quenda · 2010-10-05 02:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because at the core, they're cheapskates.

Then why not rally against Skype, in favour of SIP? SIP providers can be much cheaper than Skype, especially for calls to mobiles here (Oz).
Most high-end Nokia phones support SIP over 3G just as well as a cellular call. N900 treats SIP, Skype and Mobile equally.
It uses g729, which is patent-encumbered but otherwise open, and there are alternatives.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by mordejai · 2010-10-05 02:22 · Score: 1

Because Skype works better than any of the alternatives.
While it's nice to have free/open/libre software and protocols, the first requirement of anyone that needs to get something done is that it WORKS.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Weezul · 2010-10-05 02:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Skype has two big advantages over SIP :
(1) Skype does not require the cooperation of sysadmins because Skype was built by people willing to break the rules. Skype just works unless sysadmins specifically fight it. SIP not so much.
Solution : We need slightly more expensive SIP providers that proxy your traffic when necessary for bypassing network restrictions and incompetent sysadmins.. as well as variations on SIP that use a Skype-like P2P proxy approach.
(2) Skype dramatically simplifies the installation and setup. You've actually some chance of non-tech savvy people like your girlfriend or mom installing Skype unaided.
Solution : We need better information about which SIP providers provide cleaner packaging and proxies. Think gsmarena.com level informative.

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by javilon · 2010-10-05 02:49 · Score: 1

Actually, once the phone company is just a carrier, it will be so much easier to run open source VoIP products as the phone company won't try to actively stop us from using them. Having skype on cellphones gets us half way along that path.

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by tehcyder · 2010-10-05 02:51 · Score: 1

every linux nerd I know with any street cred at all

LOL, I'm not sure "street cred" is the right phrase here. I think you meant "geek cred".
Street cred is what you get by shooting a man in Reno just to see him die.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Rob+Kaper · 2010-10-05 03:06 · Score: 1

Because at the core, they're cheapskates.
Then why not rally against Skype, in favour of SIP?
Amen. SIP providers have given me better rates than SkypeOut for years now. I keep Skype around for those who insist on using it to reach me, but I'd rather switch them to vendor-neutral VoIP.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by cheesybagel · 2010-10-05 03:22 · Score: 1

I use Fring with SIP. The issue with SIP however is the user base. A lot of people have a Skype account, and SIP usage is more hit and miss. Also there is no one centralized SIP directory. That hampers its use.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Ihateturtlenecks · 2010-10-05 03:53 · Score: 1

Real slashers are penguins. Because, who needs actual support, industry acceptance, and a searchable knowledge base? Apple does get a pretty good thrashing around here though.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by t2t10 · 2010-10-05 03:54 · Score: 1

"We" prefer both software and protocols to be open. But "we" need to talk to and work with people who use proprietary software and protocols. So, "we" do the best we can: OpenOffice can read/write MS Office files, and Android can run Skype.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Tarsir · 2010-10-05 04:33 · Score: 1

When the domain of discourse is Linux nerds, then street cred is geek cred.
Congratulations, you just failed the Turing Test :P
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by RebootKid · 2010-10-05 04:57 · Score: 1

If using SIP with an Android phone was as easy as installing Skype, then you'd have a point there. The problem with SIP is that it has a high barrier to entry for VoIP usage. Sure, I can figure out Ekigia, but most folks can't, or don't.

I looked at using Google Voice with my G1, I've looked at SIP, and a few options. I didn't see how it was anything more than "complexity for the sake of complexity." If it works for you, then good for you. It doesn't work for me. Skype does. Skype is easy to use, and in this case, ease of use counts.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by MorpheousMarty · 2010-10-05 06:07 · Score: 1

Is there an open VOIP protocol that is compatible with both Blackberry and iPhone? I could really use it to talk to a friend who can't seem to get Skype to work with her carrier.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by SETIGuy · 2010-10-05 06:25 · Score: 1

SIP is a royal PITA to set up and use. I tried it and decided I have better things to do with my time.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by SETIGuy · 2010-10-05 06:30 · Score: 1

I'd say "A free office suite that includes every configuration option and feature from every office suite that ever existed yet requires that documents be tapped out in Morse code on the space bar is to Office as SIP is to Skype."

--
Support SETI@home
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by jonescb · 2010-10-05 06:52 · Score: 1

I actually have Sipdroid set up on my Nexus One. I don't have a 3g plan, but I know it works over wifi. And let me tell you, it was a major pain in the ass to set up. I set this up with no prior knowledge of how SIP works, and it took me a week or two to finally get working. I consider myself a technical user who enjoys these types of challenges, but if I could have just installed Skype off the market and had it work with no additional configuration I would have done that, and so would have the other 99% of the world that don't have the skills and dedication that I have.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by quenda · 2010-10-05 14:56 · Score: 1

Cheesy, most people and businesses have neither Skype nor SIP. They have telephone numbers, and you use Skype or SIP to dial an ordinary phone number. The latter is much cheaper, as there are countless SIP providers, whereas Skype is a proprietary / monopoly. The only reason I can see for Skype-Out is that it can sometimes work through a firewall that blocks SIP. But that never applies to using 3G on my phone.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by MogNuts · 2010-10-06 00:45 · Score: 1

What SIP providers do you recommend? I'd like to know, as I have yet to find any SIP provider beat Skype for unlimited phone calling (SkypeIn + SkypeOut) price. Skype is like $65 or $70 per year.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by MogNuts · 2010-10-06 00:47 · Score: 1

What SIP providers do you recommend? I'd like to know, as I have yet to find any SIP provider beat Skype for unlimited phone calling (SkypeIn + SkypeOut) price. Skype is like $65 or $70 per year.
Plus I don't want to sit in front of a computer. Skype on my smartphone is pretty good. And for iOS I've yet to find a reliable, good SIP app. Also too, I'd like a real phone, but there is no point in using SIP to save money if the only SIP phones around are like $150-200.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by MogNuts · 2010-10-06 00:51 · Score: 1

Amen. And it's very unreliable, as least for consumer level stuff. I used Fring with Sipgate and it is just so unreliable it's incredible. Half the time can't log in. Logs me out unexpectedly. Crappy connections. Doesn't always pick up. Etc.
Skype works every time, rarely a bad call connection, and flawlessly on any device (smartphone and PC). I just wish there was some sort of adapter that exists so I can connect a regular portable phone to my computer somehow so I can roam around the house, because using Skype on an IPhone 3GS sounds like crap to the listener.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by quenda · 2010-10-06 02:04 · Score: 1

What SIP providers do you recommend? I'd like to know,

I doubt that, unless you happen to live in the same country.
Here, skype charges $60pa for an incoming POTS number, compared to $5 or zero for my SIP account numbers.
Where do you get skype that cheap?
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by MogNuts · 2010-10-06 05:38 · Score: 1

The U.S. Skype charges $34 per year for outgoing calls to POTS/Cell, and $16 per year to get a number and the ability to receive incoming calls from POTS/Cell.
I know that typically SIP providers offer a telephone number and the ability to receive calls for free, but I haven't found one that hasn't charged less than $20/mo. for unlimited calling *out* to POTS/Cells. I call too much to pay by the minute.
Of course you can use that Google Voice trick to call out for free, but I find it's more trouble than it's worth.

Am I missing something? by rossdee · 2010-10-05 01:11 · Score: 1

Don't you pay more for data traffic than you do for voice traffic? Skype can give you free VOIP but then you have to pay more to the carrier for the data traffic. About the only thing I can see this being good for is international calls, which usually aren't included in your free minutes you get in your plan.

Re:Am I missing something? by Jimmy+King · 2010-10-05 01:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

That depends. It says it supports wifi and there are wifi hotspots on practically every corner where I live and many of them are free and of course the wifi in my house is free for me to use. The carriers all (I believe all of them, anyway) require an "unlmited" (with varying defintions of unlimited) data plan with Android phones, so depending on how much data skype actually uses and how much you use for other stuff, it may still be a viable option if you're over on your voice minutes or whatever.
Re:Am I missing something? by PARENA · 2010-10-05 01:18 · Score: 1

Unless you have a set price for your 3G connection, like many countries/carriers have. I know here in Finland they do that. And in the Netherlands as well. Guess that'll be changing in the coming years, but for now you pay one amount and not per meg.

--
Here's the secret to immortality: ...oh dang, I forgot.
Re:Am I missing something? by PPalmgren · 2010-10-05 01:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Voice traffic is very small when in a data format, and no, data is much cheaper. Assuming a megabyte a minute (which is probably on the high end), 5 gigs at $30/mo is 2000 minutes. My 1400 minute family plan is $80/mo.
I think this is why carriers are instituting data tiers.
Re:Am I missing something? by PPalmgren · 2010-10-05 01:22 · Score: 1

Mega Fail, missed the edit button. 5 gigs at $30/mo is 5000 minutes.
Re:Am I missing something? by Xest · 2010-10-05 01:22 · Score: 1

Depends where you're calling, someone in the same country, on the same network as you, sure. But someone on a different network in a country over the other side of the closest ocean to you?
Re:Am I missing something? by generalhavok · 2010-10-05 01:29 · Score: 1

Also, I'd like to point out that before this update, Skype for Android (at least with my Verizon Droid) would route my out-going Skype calls to a regular phone number, where it was presumably dialing into a computer than would then route my call over IP to the destination. Since I had unlimited calling on my phone, I found this to actually be better quality than calls directly over WiFi or my internet connection. Less latency, and better quality, in my opinion.
Re:Am I missing something? by delinear · 2010-10-05 01:30 · Score: 1

I was lucky enough to get onto an unlimited data package right before O2 dropped them, hopefully they'll grandfather that in for as long as I'm with them, although I also have unlimited nationwide calls so it's not a big bonus to have Skype (would be if I called abroad a lot, though), but yes, it looks like capped packages or pay per meg will be the norm going forward.
Re:Am I missing something? by niftydude · 2010-10-05 01:36 · Score: 1

Well I don't know about the US, but here in Oz I pay $1 a month for 150mb of data over 3g - so assuming an AMR codec with a bitrate at 20kbps (2.5kb/s) (which is what fring uses, I don't know about skype) - that gives me around 1000 minutes of talk per dollar!
I don't know if any voice only plans can match that.

I hear some of the other low bandwidth AMR codecs are capable of 6.5kbps - which would double that result.

Of course - if you want to call someone who doesn't have sip - you need to pay a voip provider for the dial-out service. But as far as I've experienced - it always turns out cheaper.

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re:Am I missing something? by Overzeetop · 2010-10-05 01:49 · Score: 1

Guess it's pretty carrier dependent.
My "Family plan" is $60 ($50 basic + $10 extra phone) for 550 minutes; my data plan is 200MB for $15 (or 2GB for $25). Thing is, I have to pay $40-50 just to connect to the network - I've never seen a data only plan *for a phone* with more than 100-200MB/month, and they're usually about $60. It seems that its not the cost of data, but the cost of being always on the network (fixed costs).
Still, it's nice to have options. I recently was on a golf outing at a remote hotel - they had WiFi, but no cell coverage. Thanks to Skype, I didn't have to pay the phone rates on the landlines there.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Am I missing something? by AvitarX · 2010-10-05 03:16 · Score: 1

This page:
http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showtopic=62535
estimates 40hours/GB.
This makes a 2 GB of a data plan worth 4800 minutes. Considering "unlimited" runs $25-$50 and includes 5GB (memory and from what I've seen), I would say you can comfortably save money using it to talk.
On t-mobile, I generally use 2-3 GB, giving me plenty of breathing space to use lots and lots of data for voice (though I have unlimited minutes, so withing the US, I don't really care).
Note, I've seen other lower estimates of data use too.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Am I missing something? by dbcad7 · 2010-10-05 05:15 · Score: 1

I doubt there will be a "data only" plan.. for a looong time. Will probably take some lawsuits to make it happen.

--
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net

No video by lorax · 2010-10-05 01:12 · Score: 1

It doesn't look like it can do video, that's too bad. You can also have only one account active (so you can't have both a work and a personal account). It takes over 10MB installed and can't be installed on the SD card. Other than that, it looks good.

Re:US only? by delinear · 2010-10-05 01:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

I see it in the marketplace in the UK - "Free *Skype-to-Skype calls over 3G or WiFi." Haven't tried downloading it as I'm not currently in a WiFi spot and my data connection is rubbish at work, but it looks like the genuine article.

3G calls... by mdm-adph · 2010-10-05 01:15 · Score: 1

...are only available to installations outside the US, I think.

--
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed

But how do you quit? by Cormacus · 2010-10-05 01:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

The idea of voip calling over WIFI is kindof nice, but this app rubs me the wrong way immediately with its lack of a "quit" button. Once you start it up, it sits there in the background until you reboot your phone (or go kill the app from the settings menu, I know). I wouldn't go as far as to call this "sinister" but it isn't exactly customer friendly, either.

--
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!

Re:But how do you quit? by Movi · 2010-10-05 01:30 · Score: 1

This is how all of android apps work, by design.
Re:But how do you quit? by delinear · 2010-10-05 01:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, two things - firstly the point of Skype is generally that you're available and logged in. If everyone used it as you're suggesting, you'd never be able to call someone without pre-arranging it. Whether that makes sense in the context of Skype on a mobile, we'll have to wait and see, it's early days. Secondly, most Android apps behave this way, in fact I think I've yet to encounter an in-app "quit" option, unless it's buried in the settings menu, so if this is not customer friendly, it's an accusation against a large number of Android apps rather than foul play on behalf of Skype.
Re:But how do you quit? by Cormacus · 2010-10-05 01:41 · Score: 1

Well, since I happen to have a convenient Android phone right here, I will rise to your unhelpful response.

ConnectBot
- explicit button in the menu to kill the current connection
- the "back" button quits the app

AndroidVNC
- the "back" button quits the app

Outlook mail client
- the "back" button quits the app

MapDroyd
- the "back" button quits the app

Google Maps
- the "back" button quits the app

Google "Talk"
- a button in the menu allows you to sign out, so . . .
- the "back" button then quits the app

I'm sorry, what was your point? In the Skype application the back button does not quit the app, and there isn't an easily accessible way to sign out. After digging around in the options I finally found the "Sign Out" button, but its not nearly as easy to access as in other apps. Hence my post.

--
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
Re:But how do you quit? by Venrix_Ckalzar · 2010-10-05 01:45 · Score: 1

Ive installed it, found the signout button under the 'my info' tab - was not even looking for it either. Quality of my first test call (to another skype user) was sucky on my end(chopped up occasionally), but that could have been my DSL connection being spastic (in Australia FWIW). Otherwise it seems ok to me... for now
Re:But how do you quit? by Cormacus · 2010-10-05 01:47 · Score: 1

Thanks for the well-articulated response. I was probably too quick to post complaining about a lack of a "quit" button. However most Android apps, though lacking a "quit" button, quit when you use the back button to get back to the home page. In the case of an app that is intended to stay logged in you're right that that doesn't make sense, and I did eventually find the "sign out" setting that then causes the "back" button to quit the app.

--
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
Re:But how do you quit? by robmv · 2010-10-05 01:53 · Score: 1

So the bug is the absence of an easily accessible signout button, no that the app does not exit, the grand parent is right Android was designed so apps do not need to be closed by the user, because apps without background threads are not wasting resources, and apps must expect that the system will kill them if needed. Apps on Android that really kill the process are not following the Android way of work, but for some kind of apps that is right (games with exit button for example)
Google Talk process does not ends when you press back, it still is running, even if you press the signout button.
Re:But how do you quit? by Movi · 2010-10-05 01:53 · Score: 1

With the exception of connectBot, all of those you listed do not in literal sense quit the app, or close it. You can just as well press the home button, with the exact same effect - the application in question will be kept in memory, and the process will not be destroyed, unless Android deems it necessary.
What IS true however, is that you cannot sign-off, thus Skype marks itself active, and Android will not attempt to close it (and free it's resources) like it should. But I've corrected myself about that.
Re:But how do you quit? by jareth-0205 · 2010-10-05 02:11 · Score: 1

Yes and no. Apps stay memory resident and let themselves be cleaned up by the operating system when needed, but Skype is a fair bit more annoying by keeping an icon in the notification bar (and for no real reason, even when your status is "offline").
It's a self-important move, which I expect will probably get fixed in time. I'm just happy that they've *finally* got around to making the app, it's been a long time coming.
Re:But how do you quit? by ravnous · 2010-10-05 02:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

But most apps will let you press the back button until you're out of the app. This actually does save you some memory because the activity that was active will unload when you back out of it, as opposed to continuing to run in the background when you press the home button. Most apps that need to run in the background will have a service component that runs in the background, and a UI activity that lets you interact with it. If you kill the UI by backing out of it, the service component still runs in the background. In this case, the only way to get out is to press the home button. That makes me wonder, did they disable the back button on the main screen on purpose? Are the UI and the service functionality all wrapped up in the UI activity? In which case killing the UI would also kill the whole app? Or is there a service component as well, and this is just a UI quirk?

--
When does this happen in the movie?
Re:But how do you quit? by SpaghettiPattern · 2010-10-05 02:58 · Score: 1

Well, two things - firstly the point of Skype is generally that you're available and logged in.
Sure, unless you just want to stop the application. There's a Quit menu on Skype on my notebook after all.

The fact that most applications don't terminate doesn't mean Skype shouldn't. It's nuts to need task killers because certain developers just couldn't be arsed to finish the job at hand.

--

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Re:But how do you quit? by mauriceh · 2010-10-05 04:54 · Score: 1

It is there, just not easy to find..
Go to the "My Info" tab.
Then Look in the menu button ( at bottom) and you find:
"sign out"

--
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
Re:But how do you quit? by DrgnDancer · 2010-10-05 05:14 · Score: 1

Wouldn't that be a feature though? You want it to run in the background to receive incoming calls don't you? Or am I missing something? I suppose if you only wanted to use it for outgoing calls you'd prefer it die when you "close" it, but since that surely isn't everybody, it kinda makes sense to assume that people want it to stay open unless they go through the effort to fully close it. On my iPhone I have to go in and manually close my turn by turn GPS app for this reason. They figure you want to keep navigating even if you've switched over to your iPod or what ever. Probably a reasonable assumption, but of course the GPS burns serious battery, so I always make sure to fully close it.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:But how do you quit? by FallinWithStyle · 2010-10-05 05:36 · Score: 1

Not sure why this was modded interesting -- pressing the back button until you no longer can see an application's activity DOES NOT "unload" the process from memory by default in Android.

--
Does this smell like Chloroform to you?
Re:But how do you quit? by kcitren · 2010-10-05 06:01 · Score: 1

Go to the status area of the My info tab and change your status to Sign out.
Re:But how do you quit? by skandalfo · 2010-10-05 06:59 · Score: 1

Android applications are left running in the background by the operating system until the memory they use is needed, and the application process is killed in order to reclaim it. For services running in the background (as required for receiving incoming calls), displaying a notification icon will flag the process as "less killable".
See this blog entry:

Services can further negotiate this behavior by requesting they be considered "foreground." This places the service in a "please don't kill" state, but requires that it include a notification to the user about it actively running. This is useful for services such as background music playback or car navigation, which the user is actively aware of; when you're playing music and using the browser, you can always see the music-playing glyph in the status bar. Android won't try to kill these services, but as a trade-off, ensures the user knows about them and is able to explicitly stop them when desired.

There's a menu option to totally kill the program in one of the screens. But the thing about not being able of exiting the Skype screen to the Home screen by using the back button (you can use the Home button) is another, very different thing. It's so un-androidy... :-(
Re:But how do you quit? by skandalfo · 2010-10-05 07:09 · Score: 1

See this blog post to understand why the notification icon is needed:

Services can further negotiate this behavior by requesting they be considered "foreground." This places the service in a "please don't kill" state, but requires that it include a notification to the user about it actively running. This is useful for services such as background music playback or car navigation, which the user is actively aware of; when you're playing music and using the browser, you can always see the music-playing glyph in the status bar. Android won't try to kill these services, but as a trade-off, ensures the user knows about them and is able to explicitly stop them when desired.

So if you want it to keep running as a background service to be able to receive incoming calls, this is the standard procedure. And I seriously think Android notifications are one of the best thought parts of the system.
Another thing is the inability to leave the application screen by pressing the back button (you can use the home button though, but that's so un-androidy...) You can force the application to quit completely via a menu option in one of the screens.
Re:But how do you quit? by PipsqueakOnAP133 · 2010-10-05 12:38 · Score: 1

(you can use the home button though, but that's so un-androidy...)
So... I have to ask since I've only used friend's Android phones but regularly use both an Moto WinMo 6.5 and old school iPhone original.
Why should leaving the application not be done through the home button? Why the back button? This seems weird to me since I would have expected back to be in the context of the app and home to be "go to phone's default screen".
Re:But how do you quit? by adolf · 2010-10-05 15:18 · Score: 1

I agree.
However, I'd also like to point out that lots of apps do the same thing. Reboot your Android phone and then leave it on for a day or so, doing minimal stuff like texting and web browsing and phone calls.
Fire up something like Advanced Task Killer (or the less-useful and harder-to-access bits of the setup menu) and I think you'll be surprised at just how much shit is running.
And after you kill it all off, some of it creeps right back.
Doesn't matter, in my experience -- it's just how it is.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:But how do you quit? by skandalfo · 2010-10-05 18:31 · Score: 1

Most of the time Android activity screens just "stack" as they are being opened. An example with the GMail client would be InBox -> Display specific message -> Reply.
Usually, when you press the back button, you just cancel the top activity screen, popping it out of the stack. For instance, you could cancel replying to a message by pressing the back button, so that you get back to having the display specific message activity on top.
When backing/popping the last activity, the application is not needed anymore and usually its execution ends, taking you back to either the home screen or the "other" application that launched it (for instance, by choosing to share a photo via GMail from the Gallery application, you got a Gallery stack starting a nested GMail stack). This is different from pressing the home button, that just puts the activity stack aside (it's still open in the background while memory allows), so that you can "start another stack", and then switching back to the previous stack afterwards by holding home and then selecting the previous stack from the list of "currently active" stacks.
Re:But how do you quit? by PipsqueakOnAP133 · 2010-10-06 05:45 · Score: 1

Ah, I see. That's interesting. Not sure if I'd like it, but I'd have to try it first to see.
So Home hides the current stack, and Back pops the current activity.
Does Home also bring you to the application launcher or the home screen when the current stack gets hidden?

And it's OK, except for a few bugs... by bemymonkey · 2010-10-05 01:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

... the most horrendous of which is the same one more or less all other Android instant messaging apps have:

After about 10-20 minutes of the phone idling, the app is just closed in the background. Notification icon stays put, so you don't notice it, but when you try to actually open Skype again, it starts up right at the login screen and procedes to log in again. Nearly all the other instant messaging apps I've tried also exhibit this behaviour: Meebo, Nimbuzz, eBuddy, IM+ 3.x...

Other than that it's not bad. Decent power management (between 0 and 1mA of power drain in standby, compared to 35-40mA for most other IM apps), good call quality on WiFi (haven't tried 3G yet) and a decent UI.

Still feels pretty buggy, of course, but hey... it's Skype and the calls work!

Re:And it's OK, except for a few bugs... by somersault · 2010-10-05 01:47 · Score: 1

Are you sure this isn't actually a problem with your specific version of Android? Not that I've even tried any instant messaging apps on my phone yet, but some versions of Android are better than others depending on how much the carrier has screwed around with them.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:And it's OK, except for a few bugs... by bemymonkey · 2010-10-05 02:27 · Score: 1

I've been using mainly Cyanogenmod based Desire ROMs, but I got exactly the same behaviour on my old Moto Milestone...I know it sounds stupid. but I get the feeling that most people just don't realize that the apps are no longer running - the notification bar icon doesn't disappear, after all.
Re:And it's OK, except for a few bugs... by somersault · 2010-10-05 02:59 · Score: 1

Fair enough. It may have caused my touchscreen to start acting funny too, I ended up resetting my Streak and haven't tried the app again. It doesn't even have video calling, which was the only reason I installed it (had a whim to test out the video calling on my device, as I haven't tried it yet).

--
which is totally what she said
Re:And it's OK, except for a few bugs... by bemymonkey · 2010-10-05 03:07 · Score: 1

My Desire touchscreen got a little funky too, but a reboot solved that, and I haven't had the problem again even though I have the Skype app running again.
Actually thought it was a fluke...

Google Voice by EasyRhino · 2010-10-05 01:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Re: Allows calling via 3G and WiFi.

This was already available via the Google Voice app. It even has integration with the phone app to be the default method to make calls.

Re:Google Voice by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 01:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

Thank you for pointing this out. In fact, I use GV with my old GrandCentral account for both in/out-bound voice on a "data only" N900 on T-Mobile (unlimited data only plan is $25/mo). Skype, schmype.
Re:Google Voice by faedle · 2010-10-05 01:29 · Score: 1

At least on any Android device I've ever used the Google Voice app does not deliver calls to your handset over VoIP, it delivers it by making a phone call from your handset to a special phone number (or by delivering a call to your handset FROM a special number).
Re:Google Voice by zufar · 2010-10-05 01:35 · Score: 1

Google voice is not available in Russia, Skype work anywhere where there is internet.
Re:Google Voice by kingturkey · 2010-10-05 02:28 · Score: 1

Indeed. Nor in any country other than the US.
Re:Google Voice by gambino21 · 2010-10-05 03:36 · Score: 1

Google Voice on Android does not provide VOIP. It works by first calling a google voice access number and then patching you through to the number you're trying to call. This can help for things like international calls, but it still uses up your minutes. Some plans have an option where you can make unlimited calls to certain numbers, and to the phone company it appears that you are just calling the google voice number again and again. So it can help you if you tend to max out your minutes to a variety of numbers, but using Google Voice by itself doesn't allow you to make calls over Wifi. However, with that said, you may be able to combine Google voice with other services to get free VOIP on android (http://lifehacker.com/5349506/make-free-voip-calls-from-google-voice)
Skype allows you to make calls completely over Wifi with just the single app. So you can call other Skype users without using any minutes, and the setup is much simpler than the Google Voice/SIP setup.
Re:Google Voice by buybuydandavis · 2010-10-05 09:04 · Score: 1

I had high hopes for google voice, and love it as a message phone number, because of the transcript it produces, but the latency is unbearable for an actual call.
I haven't had problems with latency on skype, and mainly just want to use this on wifi at home.

Crashes immediatly after signin by mnt · 2010-10-05 01:27 · Score: 1

No matter which button i click, the application always closes unexpectedly. Uninstalled, needs obviously more polishing.

Basque? by srussia · 2010-10-05 01:30 · Score: 1

FTFA: The app supports a number of languages, including Brazilian Portuguese, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Swedish, Polish, Russian, Simplified Chinese & Traditional Chinese.

I don't always call my Basque friends from abroad., but when I do I prefer Skype.

"Mantendu egarri, nire lagun."

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

skype is good. asterisk is better by markusre · 2010-10-05 01:36 · Score: 1

... nice.... but not great

i'd rather have an asterisk version that runs on my mobile device.
i would love to be able to program dialplans on my mobile...

1. some cron-job that checks if my sim is inserted. and if not it writes a call file that makes the phone call expensive 0190-... numbers (these are the 2-5€/min lines in germany)
i know it doesn't bring me my phone back but at least i can have a little revenge and i hope by the time the thief realizes this he has a phone bill of 2000€ or more (and gained a 200€ mobile)

2. some time & phone number check (i hate it when my boss calls me in the early morning, he and a lot of other inbound numbers should be redirected to some voice recongnation system). i know a lot of phones have some grouping of numbers and the ability to set only some numbers to mute, but it's just not adaptable enough.

Re:skype is good. asterisk is better by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 01:43 · Score: 1, Informative

So load a SIP client on your Android phone and point it to your Asterisk server. SIPDroid works great.
Re:skype is good. asterisk is better by markusre · 2010-10-05 02:12 · Score: 1

....
my point was the asterisk server should be running ON the phone. ( actually i got it running on my freerunner)
but i didnt find a way to make "normal" (non voip calls) with the asterisk server that is installed on my mobile phone.

For those that are wondering.... by NiteShaed · 2010-10-05 01:36 · Score: 1

it doesn't work on Sprint's 4G network either, it really is just WiFi only.

This doesn't really bother me, since I generally only use Skype as a fallback if there's no cell service available to me at all, so really it's doing just what I want. For long-distance calling when I have a signal, I generally stick with Google Voice which works great over regular cell networks, but has no VOIP option yet on Android. Once Google adds wifi calling, I'll be pretty close to saying bye-bye to Skype for paid services.

--
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.

Skype on 3G? by EmagGeek · 2010-10-05 01:41 · Score: 1

I dunno about the bulk of humanity, but it seems to me that latency on 3G would be too high to support skype without significant buffering delays...

bringing it oldschool. by HeckRuler · 2010-10-05 01:47 · Score: 1

verily.

This thing sucks on Verizon by Orleron · 2010-10-05 01:53 · Score: 1

With Verizon you can't make calls with WiFi on it. It routes all the calls through your Verizon carrier, so what's the point of Skype if you can't use it via wifi? Garbage.

Skype and resources by irp · 2010-10-05 01:53 · Score: 1

The download of Skype takes ~8.5MB, when installed it eats ~14MB of my meager phone storage.

I've seen comments that it requires a lot of CPU, introducing noise in the transmission for low-end android phones (I didn't try to make a call myself).

For comparison, Nimbuzz - which also use the Skype network - takes ~4.5MB to download and uses ~9.6MB of storage after install.

Also I wasn't able to find a "close" function in Skype! I could of course kill the app, but that should *not* be necessary. Another option is to log out, which requires entering the password at next login, also not convenient.

All in all I decided to uninstall skype, and keep using Nimbuzz for the rare times I need VoIP on my mobile.

What a fudgy turd by wampus · 2010-10-05 01:54 · Score: 1

It doesn't work in landscape mode for several panels, so you get to rotate your phone manually. The stupid notification that won't go away is lovely, and there is no way to merge contacts. Also, 9MB? Seriously? Maybe later, but I doubt it.

google voice already works in 3G and free US calls by harry_one · 2010-10-05 01:57 · Score: 1

Why are they blocking 3G when google voice allows it?

Old News and Verizon Only by JustABlitheringIdiot · 2010-10-05 01:58 · Score: 1

This has been around for a while (at least 3 weeks) and so far the ONLY Android phones it supports are on Verizon. If you access their page with anything else they tell you to get a Verizon phone.

It's just marketing, baby! by VincenzoRomano · 2010-10-05 01:58 · Score: 1

Just until CISCO will buy Skype. Then everything will revert back to normal operation.

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]

Re:US only? by BlackCreek · 2010-10-05 02:00 · Score: 1

Perhaps you have the wildfire whose screen definition is too low for the Skype app? Or you don't have Android 2.1?

I have a G1 running Cyanogen 6.? (i.e. Android 2.2) in France and could just install it.

Skype not the solution by MogNuts · 2010-10-05 02:00 · Score: 1

VoIP or Skype on a cell isn't necessarily the best solution. My findings with using the two extensively:

- Unusable voice quality while driving. To many breakups, jitter, total silence for like 30 sec
- Same for using it over 3G, even in an area with great coverage
- Performs great on wifi via cell but only if within very close range to one's router
- Voice quality using it on a PC with a headset/microphone is vastly superior than using Skype via cell; via cell isn't clear enough, yet doesn't filter out background noise so it's tougher to understand

In theory using voip for everything seems grand. But...

If you don't talk alot, using Skype to supplement your minutes is fine. But if you talk alot or use the cell for business, whatever the telco does for voice codec/network optimization they do, one is better off getting unlimited minutes or getting more minutes. The quality when mobile and not tethered to wifi is superior.

Re:Chozo by BlackCreek · 2010-10-05 02:04 · Score: 1

If it does support video chat, that would make the yet unreleased Desire HD a lot less attractive. Somewhat outdated even before its release. A bit like my G1 released without 3.5mm headset output.

FWIW, I don't think video chat is support (no mention of it anywhere), but I suppose it should be coming soon

Re:Whoah... Its how big?!? by netsharc · 2010-10-05 02:12 · Score: 1

Luckily my homebrew ROM/OS has symlinks to a 2nd partition on the SD-card, which has been formatted as ext3, so apps think they are installing to the main memory, but since they follow the symlink, they install themselves transparently into that partition, and the main memory remains free!

(LeeDroid on HTC Desire, Google it)

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!

Re:US only? by jabuzz · 2010-10-05 02:14 · Score: 1

Nah, they must be doing some sort of model detection. I have just tried getting it on my brand new Toshiba AC100 (aka Android netbook) and it says Skype is unavailable for my handset... Ok it's not a handset, but I have a dual core 1GHz Cortex A9 CPU with a 1024x600 screen and a webcam all running under 2.1 so lack of resources is not the problem.

404 in Canada by ramriot · 2010-10-05 02:25 · Score: 1

I have tried several ways but the download link to the android market is a 404 here in Canada. Is this a shared result or should I report it to Skype?

Re:404 in Canada by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-10-05 06:25 · Score: 1

In Canada as well, and I found and successfully installed it by searching "skype" on the Market.

Well put by Kludge · 2010-10-05 02:29 · Score: 1

Good question: Why do Slashdoters care about a closed protocol on a closed platform?

Slashdot used to be a place where we made fun of people who wanted their closed protocols on their closed platforms. Now its a bunch of Apple fans and corporate apologists.
I've been using SIP and Skype and Jabber and etc on my N900 for months. Get a clue people!
I'm pining for the good old days. I must be getting old.

Re:Well put by Duradin · 2010-10-05 03:34 · Score: 1

Apple used to be part of the "in" crowd here so you may not want the old "good old days".
I suggest the period right after the famous Nomad comparison. The Apple hate is nice and fresh.

What, no SIP on Android?!?! by Deternal · 2010-10-05 02:30 · Score: 1

One step closer to the carriers being just... carriers.

Duh, SIP should already exist for Android just like it does for Symbian.

Skype is a halfbaked lock-in solution.

Re:What, no SIP on Android?!?! by Malc · 2010-10-05 02:58 · Score: 1

Skype is awesome. I used it every day at work (colleagues in China, Germany, UK and USA). I use it several times a week to stay in touch with family and friends around the country and world. It works on my Mac at home, my work PC, my iPhone and now apparently on my partner's Android-based Samsung phone. When I travel, I can be sure to find anywhere in the world it's available, without having to take a computer or phone with me. It's one of the cheapest ways to make international phone calls, or send international SMS messages. The sound quality from Skype-to-Skype is way better than the phone. The way it handles latency and packet loss is better than any other protocol I've tried, even calling UK or US phones from China. The Skype-out credits seem to last for ages. The video features are also awesome, but I just wish they could be used in conf calls.
What's your problem with it exactly?
Re:What, no SIP on Android?!?! by Timmmm · 2010-10-05 04:44 · Score: 1

Hmm, I've used sipdroid (I even wrote a patch for call recording), but it is insanely complicated to set up, the call quality isn't great, but the main thing that killed it for me was the latency. It was on the order of a few seconds.
I just tried the new skype app. I used the test echo service and call quality was pretty amazing. Can't say anything about latency yet, but it can't be as bad as SIP. The app is pretty buggy at the moment (it wouldn't let me log in until I turned off wifi), but it seems like a good start (finally!)
Re:What, no SIP on Android?!?! by Deternal · 2010-10-05 23:06 · Score: 1

Primarily the single vendor lock-in.
You can achieve exactly the same with SIP - however since SIP by nature is more centralized the latency issue Timmmm (636430) mentions can be a problem.
With that said I don't have anything specific against Skype - it works, and people are happy so hurray!
However I disagree with the quote - carriers should be providers of dumb tubes for the customer to transfer bits, however they have used an excessive amount of money on "smart pipes", which main purpose is to help the carrier overcharge for certain kinds of bits.
This of course is stupid, and a prevailing open standard which helps relegate carriers to be only that is helpful here, and Skype does not do that, on the contrary it works against this.

What's a good SIP client? by metamatic · 2010-10-05 02:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

I absolutely point-blank refuse to use Skype for exactly that reason.

So, what's a good VoIP client for Android? I have a legacy Gizmo SIP account I use with my Linux desktop.

I'm aware of IMSdroid, SIPdroid, Linphone and Fring, but I haven't seen anyone do a good comparative review.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Re:What's a good SIP client? by xaxa · 2010-10-05 03:20 · Score: 1

Adding to this: I've used Skype once before, and I just installed it on my phone and it seems like it could be useful. I'd prefer to use something else though, if it does what I need it to do.
Where do I start with SIP? I'm not really sure what the possibilities are, or who (if anyone) I need an account with, etc. It seems Google offer some kind of SIP service.
I'd like to
1) be able to call another user of the same service
2) call UK numbers over my broadband connection (I'm in the UK, but my brick house blocks most of my phone's GSM signal)
3) have a UK number (preferably 01/02/03) that people can call
1 would be the most useful, 3 I expect I'd need to pay, but I won't consider more than about £3/month -- I don't really need it more than that.

App permissions? by Graftweed · 2010-10-05 02:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

As much as I love the idea of an easy to use and ubiquitous VoIP application that I carry with me everywhere in my pocket -- insane 3G data rates and prorietary protocols notwhithstanding -- I have to question some of the permissions it's requesting.

Maybe this is due to me not fully understanding the Android permissions model, in which case I hope someone will clarify what these mean, but aren't these a little overreaching?

Read and write contact data - I assume this means the Skype app stores contact data in the phone's address book, but it also gives it access to all my other contact data (local or google contacts).

Coarse location - In my experience coarse location, when requested in heavily populated areas, is just as accurate as fine (GPS) location. Why does Skype need to know exactly where I'm standing in order to route my VoIP calls? The desktop application seems to do fine without it.

Act as an account authenticator, manage the accounts list, use the authentication credentials of an account - Does Skype use the Android accounts and sync framework, like a regular Google account does? And, like the contact data, I'm pretty sure this also means it has access to all the other Google account authentication credentials stored on the phone.

I'm pretty sure all of these permissions are requested for legitimate reasons, but from what I can understand it also means the Skype app has access to some pretty sensitive information, basically your whole Google account. Am I correct?

Re:App permissions? by cboslin · 2010-10-06 10:38 · Score: 1

I learned the hard way, you can too, see the message at the bottom, but first to your post...
If the new version of Skype is attempting to force you to provide additional information through Coarse location (your words) or Acting as an account authenticator then only purchase handsets that give you full Linux root access and you can install any version of Linux Skype. I suspect that the proprietary provider, whether Verizon, Cingular, ATT, TMobile, whoever (they are all equally bad based on customer no service alone) has added code to ruin your day, document who you are in order to sell your personal information to others (advertisers) and geo locate you through triangulation or some other method...none of which is honestly good for you (can you say stalker, I knew you could).
If the handset does not allow for root access so you can configure and install software of your choosing, do NOT purchase it.
This avoids all the hassles. And another hint, I can serve more clients with WiFi and DD-WRT running on a supported device then any 3G, 4G... or 10G network. Just wait until I can get Fiber to the home (FTTH) that is starting to be offered in a few areas in the USA. I can not wait to be out from under the bandwidth restricting, throttling cable companies (100% of them limit your bandwidth, you just do not know if you are not running one of these three softwares on a DD-WRT supported device!: DD-WRT, OpenWrt or Tomato. That too is a choice you made that limits your ability to log and see what is really going on.
Stop making poor choices, stop purchasing proprietary hardware that only hurts and limits you.
No Root Access ~ Not Smart!
Not Smart ~ Dumb device!

I would add No Linux ~ Not Smart, but that is my admitted bias based on poor experience with Microsoft since the day they started business. Yes I used IBM PC DOS before MS DOS...that that is another story.
Nokia Nxxx devices have Maemo Root Access
Note: Some versions of Android allow for Root Access, just not any of the versions put out by the cellular companies, do NOT purchase their handsets. Those same cellular companies choose proprietary hardware and chips on purpose to lock down the device, prevent you from configuring or installing software. To help them and hurt you...do not buy their crap proprietary hand sets.

Read and write contact data - I assume this means the Skype app stores contact data in the phone's address book, but it also gives it access to all my other contact data (local or google contacts).
I run Skype (for Linux of course) on my Asus Eee PC netbook, ZaReason Breeze Pro 4220 (starting at $399, still under $816 with quad core, 4GB RAM and 1GB HD) and Nokia N800 just fine. There is a Linux version of Skype that will run on all three of them. There is a version of Linux that will run on your hardware and if you purchase the right hardware, without additional configuration issues.

Hint: The right hardware is NEVER offered by big box stores, Microsoft, Microsoft partners, or Cellular providers....just a fact. You control th

Re:US only? by xaxa · 2010-10-05 02:53 · Score: 1

I had an abandoned Skype account, but I've downloaded the app and it works fine -- I made a test call over a very good 3.5G connection, I'll have to try somewhere/sometime else too see how it works with less-good connections.

My house is built the old way: thick layers of bricks. Phone signal is rubbish -- 5 bars outside, 2 right next to the windows, and 1 (if I'm lucky) inside. This looks like it could be very useful.

Too soon? by Lewah · 2010-10-05 03:06 · Score: 1

Isn't all of this conversation a bit moot until they release something that actually works?

--
Good karma is like social intolerance; apparently everyone has it but me.

Verizon forcing it on LG Ally users by Is0m0rph · 2010-10-05 03:19 · Score: 1

I got a app update on my Ally last week and they are forcing a 3G only Skype on us. It can't be uninstalled. I haven't made calls with it yet but I have used a chatroom and it worked well.

tried it by __aaoyac5342 · 2010-10-05 03:21 · Score: 1

There is a lot of static noise and occasionally a very loud crackly sound. Seems to be working on Telus up here in Edmonton Alberta (that is is Canada btw) Nice to be able to call my mom who lives a couple hours away without being charged long distance.

License by atisss · 2010-10-05 03:37 · Score: 1

Skype blog warns that "In the US, you can make calls only over WiFi."

3G w googleVoice, why skype over gVoice? by Dever · 2010-10-05 03:39 · Score: 1

well, as skype JUST came out with this for android, in my mind (having an android set, waited for skype and using gVoice)

the obvious comparison is to gVoice.

3G is disabled? F them.

they're hobblers. hobbled it for verizon, should have had the snot slapped out of them for even cooperating with the vzw use minutes for voip! solution.

up theirs. and now,. more of the same for other carriers too. wheeeeeeeeeeee.

3G works fine for my gvoice.

2.1+ android required? maybe for video calling, but i remember making video calls w fring on a 1.6 handset. why require newest vers for a voIP client? seems fine once you extrapolate it out 6+months to when the userbase grows on 2.1+ versions, but now...kinda sucks after waiting so long.

they've pretty much been tarding this android process along, and tarded it right to completion

why skype and not gVoice? i've settled into gVoice for business/personal simplification and cheap calls quite nicely.

anyone?

--
- I'd prefer not to.

Does anyone here remember the iPhone? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 03:50 · Score: 1, Funny

it was kinda cool in it's day!

gVoice no voIP option on android? no wifi? wrong?! by Dever · 2010-10-05 03:54 · Score: 1

well, i think its wrong.

when connected wifi, it makes its calls thru the gVoice random connecting number.
when on data, it makes its calls also.
when neither is available, it throws up a 'service not reachable' error and quits back to dialer app.

how is android not making voiceIP calls?

--
- I'd prefer not to.

No Android 1.5 by cowtamer · 2010-10-05 04:13 · Score: 1

I'm seriously ticked at Samsung for promising to but NEVER releasing an Android upgrade for the Behold II. I'm stuck with the earlier OS, and the skype mobile site urges me to "get Skype Mobile (TM) on Verizon Wireless' best selling 3G Phones"

</whine>

What I'm wondering by gerf · 2010-10-05 04:14 · Score: 1

As an American who travels for work, I am curious how this works when I'm in, say, South Africa or Uzbekistan. Verizon still (for now), offers an Unlimited Data plan in the US, which can be extended to an Unlimited International Data plan. If I couple this International Data plan with this app, will I or will I not be able to make Skype calls from other countries?

Seriously, this can be a godsend if I'm out of the country for months at a time. I just don't want to change my phone and incur all charges if it doesn't pan out. Ironically (or not?), Verizon employees are the least knowledgable when I ask this.

Re:What I'm wondering by h4rr4r · 2010-10-05 09:15 · Score: 1

Unless those nations have CDMA it won't matter. Most places outside the USA use GSM.

Dumb Pipe by mr100percent · 2010-10-05 04:14 · Score: 1

It's "common knowledge" that carriers fight all this stuff, because it both cuts into their call profits and relegates them to just "dumb pipes."

Why are they so against being dumb pipes? Have they ever really offered specialized or differentiating services? I think only Verizon ever offered something like VCast or carrier-specific apps, right?

Far too large by MikeCamel · 2010-10-05 04:19 · Score: 1

It's over 13KB: they're clueless. And you can't even move it to the SD card, as it's not Android 2.2 aware.

Re:Far too large by MikeCamel · 2010-10-05 04:21 · Score: 1

That's 13MB. Stupid spell check.

Link to random apk? Cute. by Slashdot+Parent · 2010-10-05 05:03 · Score: 1

Also, it's 9MB, there's a link to the .apk for those of us with metered data plans: com.skype.raider.apk.

If you have a metered data plan to the point that a 9MB download is undesirable, what the hell would you want a chat app for?

In case you're wondering, yes, chat apps consume a lot of data.

--
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock

Re:US only? by 68K · 2010-10-05 05:09 · Score: 1

I downloaded it earlier and was able to make a Skype-to-Skype call from my Android phone on 3G (in England) to my brother's laptop in the States. Worked just great, and the call quality was excellent.

No idea how much of a chunk that 30-second call took out of my data plan though.

Re:gVoice no voIP option on android? no wifi? wron by NiteShaed · 2010-10-05 05:26 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how you're doing that. What version of Android/Phone/provider do you have?

When dialing out from an Android phone, you have the option of either using the number that was assigned to you by your provider, or using "call with Google Voice". This is essentially the same as using Skype2Go, meaning that the call is placed over your cellular provider's network to a Google number, which then routes the call and makes it appear to come from your Google Voice number to the person you're calling. Making calls this way does not work over Wifi, and still uses minutes on your cell plan. I have never seen any model of Android phone that allows for calls to be made when there is no cellular service available, but WiFi is, and I've never heard of Google offering actual VOIP service from a handset, only from your computer.

Now, I understand that soon T-Mobile will be offering Android phones that are UMA compatible, which allows a phone to treat both cellular and wifi networks as interchangeable. This is a little different than what's classicly thought of as VOIP though, and afaik, not yet actually available for Android.

--
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.

Re:Anonymous Coward by RebootKid · 2010-10-05 05:43 · Score: 1

Verizon's had a bundled version for a while. It was not available to the general user base.

Canada by loconet · 2010-10-05 05:50 · Score: 1

Just downloaded it for my HTC Magic (2.1) on Rogers and the 3G calling works perfectly. Used it on a free 1-800.

--
[alk]

What Happened??? by pivot_enabled · 2010-10-05 07:17 · Score: 1

I've been waiting for this for ages. Found it stunningly stupid that Skype had cut a deal with Verizon which meant that no generic Android based devices (think Archos) could work since Skype wifi was disabled.

At any rate... It worked great this morning, but now:

"We're sorry, but we couldn't sign you in. Please try again later."

WTF?

Re:What Happened??? by dmesg0 · 2010-10-05 08:33 · Score: 1

Everyone is having the same problem. Just look at the market comments - last 100 ratings are 1 star with the same complaint. The weird thing is that it does establish connection to 194.165.188.125 port 12350, so the server is not down. The actual data is encrypted, I can't understand what's going on.
Re:What Happened??? by Mike+Zilva · 2010-10-05 11:04 · Score: 1

I'm having the same problem in Portugal with a Nexus One. It worked fine, I've made a call with good audio quality both ways, but I think skype downed my bettery and now can't sign in again :(
Re:What Happened??? by Mike+Zilva · 2010-10-05 11:57 · Score: 1

Ups, now it just signed in automaticaly without I evan try again :) I heard the typical skype sign in sound from the phone, and there it was online again.

Re:US only? by BatGnat · 2010-10-05 07:47 · Score: 1

I have a galaxy S, I downloaded it, it runs! I just cant remember my password at the moment....

Re:But how do you quit? - Advanced task killer by buybuydandavis · 2010-10-05 09:01 · Score: 1

An android app that is accessible from the title bar (the bar at the top of the screen). I routinely open it and kill all background processes. And of course, you can set some processes on a Do Not Kill list.

It seemed my phone would get a little sticky and slow sometimes. Not anymore.

Skype needs to grow some balls by jonwil · 2010-10-05 11:22 · Score: 1

They should stop caring what the carriers have to say.
Support Skype on Android (voice and video calls) without even detecting what connectivity is being used.

If the carriers like AT&T dont like it, they are free to block Skype completly (and risk users switching to another carrier that doesn't block Skype)

Re:US only? by jrumney · 2010-10-05 13:10 · Score: 1

The Skype webpage states that the app is not available in Japan and China, but that is obviously only part of the story as there are comments stating it cannot be seen in the Ukraine and Turkey markets, and I cannot see it in the Market from Malaysia.

Re:This is as good a spot as any for me to jump in by PPalmgren · 2010-10-05 13:33 · Score: 1

It is a very effective tool to get shit done while "mobile." Your comment just amounts to a rant because you're not taking into account how its used by others. Take my mother, whose job revolves around the weather, she can now check the radar while in her car so she knows what to expect and plan for her company. My uncle checks forum questions for his business on the go all the time, because hes not big enough to staff it yet. I use it to check on things on break at work that I'd rather not have on in my work internet history for privacy reasons. Its worth the money to all three of us.

With regards to cost, yeah, we all know its outrageous and hope that some day a big antitrust suit slaps this crap down. They can't get away with it forever as the public is becoming increasingly hostile towards both ISPs and wireless carriers. Hopefully we'll see some change soon.

Re:This is as good a spot as any for me to jump in by adolf · 2010-10-05 16:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

*shrug*

Let me preface this by saying that I'm 31 years old. I have been involved with computers since I was born. My first gaming system was an Atari 2600, and my first computer was a TRS-80 Model I with a Radio Shack cassette recorder, though friends variously had a TI99/4A, Atari 800, C64, or Apple ][. I've never attended college, finding formal education to be far too boring. I am not a Luddite.

And frankly, I don't know how any of that matters.

Moving right along:

I initially failed to see the hype surround cell phones, myself. I used to watch my boss fiddle with his old PalmOS Kyocera phone and think, "Gee, I can do all of that with the Handspring Visor that I have in my pocket, and the batteries last for a month!"

I used to swear, up and down, that if my boss didn't want me to have a cell phone badly enough to pay for it, that I wouldn't have one at all.

I used that Visor for a long, long time, with it rattling around in my pants pocket with a couple of pocket knives and a work-provided cell phone, protected only by its own built-in case. I miss its durability and battery life. (It still works and looks fine, even though it was a refurb even when I bought it around 2002.)

Then, I got an iPod Touch. I didn't particularly want one, but it was a free rebate item on a fancy Netgear switch that we'd bought a couple of at work, and I ended up with it.

And, lo, the iPod was useful! I found myself looking at all manner of things wherever there was Wifi, and having a hell of a good time doing it. So much easier, it was, than using my laptop to do the same thing. And instead of calling back to someone at the shop when I needed a pinout for some obscure device that I found myself working on, I could just fucking Google it myself.

So when the Droid came out, I decided I'd jump in, because it'd let me do the same things in a far more open fashion, almost anywhere. Doing so was a big deal for me: Because I work for a Verizon retailer, and I didn't want to carry two phones, I had to buy the thing at cash value ($529, IIRC) if I still wanted the company to float the voice plan. And pay the $30 monthly fee for data coverage.

And you know what? I use it all the time. I've got manuals stored on it, Google at the ready, and damn near every manner of data available to me that I'd have with a desktop PC, but without lugging a desktop.

Typically, it's way, way faster than dialup. I've seen downloads come in at a measured 180 kilobytes per second. Things slow down in areas that are either very dense or very sparse, but that's OK -- I'm not ever without bandwidth.

And in terms of overall utility: I'm way more productive (read: less frustrated) at work, because when I'm out and about doing my technical things, I can find the data I need. Whether configuring a decade-old quad video switcher, or finding the relative headings of local TV stations to aid in aiming a TV antenna (and a compass!), or digging up a manual on some newfangled dispatch communications console, I've got what I need accessible wherever I'm at. One day, I needed an accurate frequency counter: I downloaded one, and it worked great, eliminating hours of work. One day, I needed a flashlight, so I downloaded one of those. Another day, I needed to calculate the voltage drop on a 2,800 foot run of 8 AWG copper, so I Googled a Javascript calculator for that. And then, I needed a bubble level. Or a free Wifi channel to set up a new AP. Et cetera, and so on, and so forth.

It does this stuff.

I haven't regretted paying for this thing for a second, even though the $30 data plan is a lot more than my wife pays to my mom-in-law for her own phone (much like your own wife) and the initial cost was way more than I felt I wanted to spend on such a thing.

If you can't find the utility in a gee-whiz cell phone, you're either not trying hard enough, too tied down to a desk to care, or stuck thinking about the thing as a telephone/ball-and-chain instead of all that is Teh Intarwebs.

--
Kid-proof tablet..

Slashdot Mirror

Skype Officially Available For Android

221 of 286 comments (clear)