Slashdot Mirror


Skype Officially Available For Android

After a lot of speculation, Arvisp writes "Skype has released an official Android version. It allows calling via 3G and WiFi." One step closer to the carriers being just... carriers.

42 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. At last! by metageek · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    metageek
    1. Re:At last! by gl4ss · · 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.
    2. Re:At last! by generalhavok · · 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.

    3. Re:At last! by AltairDusk · · 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.

    4. Re:At last! by digitalchinky · · 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.

    5. Re:At last! by anUnhandledException · · 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.

    6. Re:At last! by mldi · · 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.
    7. Re:At last! by MobyDisk · · 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.

    8. Re:At last! by ichthus · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      sig: sauer
  2. One step closer? by Bill_the_Engineer · · 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...
  3. Cool by Pojut · · 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?

    1. Re:Cool by bemymonkey · · 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. :)

    2. Re:Cool by Sockatume · · 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?
    3. Re:Cool by tlhIngan · · 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.

  4. More detail... by GraemeDonaldson · · 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?
    1. Re:More detail... by zero.kalvin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am using on Android 2.0 , It says nothing on 2.1 being required.

    2. Re:More detail... by kzharv · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why no skype in Japan?
      I see no such restriction after installing on 2 phones here in Tokyo....

  5. Just tried it and there's a big gotcha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Just tried it and there's a big gotcha by victorhooi · · 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

  6. access rights? by mercurized · · 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..

  7. So we like open source, but not open protocols? by anti-NAT · · 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
    1. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by _merlin · · 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.

    2. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Ihateturtlenecks · · 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.

    3. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by forkazoo · · 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.

    4. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Vintermann · · 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.
    5. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Duradin · · 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.

    6. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by niftydude · · 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.
    7. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by shish · · 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
    8. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by quenda · · 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.

    9. Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? by Weezul · · 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
  8. Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Re:US only? by delinear · · 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.

  10. But how do you quit? by Cormacus · · 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!
    1. Re:But how do you quit? by delinear · · 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.

    2. Re:But how do you quit? by ravnous · · 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?
  11. Re:Am I missing something? by Jimmy+King · · 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.

  12. Re:Am I missing something? by PPalmgren · · 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.

  13. Google Voice by EasyRhino · · 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.

  14. Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. by Spad · · Score: 2, Informative
  15. What's a good SIP client? by metamatic · · 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
  16. App permissions? by Graftweed · · 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?

  17. Re:This is as good a spot as any for me to jump in by adolf · · 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.