Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Buying Skype for $8.5B
Approximately one trillion readers wrote in to tell us that there is a big rumor that Microsoft is buying Skype. This follows an earlier rumor that the
suitor was Facebook. Unsurprisingly many people are already wondering what it would mean for Linux users of the popular VoIP platform. Many major publications are running versions of the story.
So what's a good alternative to Skype that works cross-platform? I use Skype with Linux and Android connecting to Mac and Windows users. Is Jitsi a reasonable solution?
[Insert pithy quote here]
"wondering what it would mean for Linux users" - It means you're fucked! Sadly.
Jonathanjk.com
And here I was thinking I had submitted a great story! Anyways, I use Linux primarily, and skype often with family members. I hope I don't have to re-setup everything as a result of discontinued compatibility. It's doubtful that they would continue to support versions of linux. I can see them supporting apple software as they do for Office, but I'd be willing to bet linux users will be hung out to dry.
Does it uninstall cleanly?
Microsoft already has the technology necessary in their own audio/video/text Windows Live Messenger platform. So I don't think it's about that. And yes, I feel sorry for the Skype staff today -- I don't think this move bodes well for them at all. Their competence may not be what Microsoft is looking for here.
And as for other reasons, the paying customer base (compared to the non-paying WLM user base) of Skype could perhaps be attractive to Microsoft. Keep in mind that Skype is running with losses despite all these users, though.
In the end, taking all these thoughts together, I can only imagine that this is a risky move by Microsoft. I think they are hoping for awesome synergy effects from some forthcoming integration with their products. I assume something big, and no minor idea, since it needs to pay these $8.5 billion and more.
My first idea was integrating this with Windows Phone 7 (8? 9?) to get phone calls at data rates, but I have no idea how they'll going to get the providers to accept that. That would be a feat as grand as Steve Jobs getting the music companies to sign on to iTunes back in the days, if not greater.
Otherwise... Hmm, someone mentioned Xbox or Kinect integration to communicate with others with these devices... Well that's a thought but why shouldn't they be able to just implement that feature with their Live network? Write a WLM client for these - done. No $8.5 billion wasted.
Not sure if there are other ideas about where MS may be going with this?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Wow - all the Linux people spreading the FUD this time around. Ever stop to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, MS is buying it for the tech, looking to expand on what's already there, being able to use their existing infrastructure to better the service, while adding it to the Xbox 360 (and future consoles), all the while, continuing development of all the versions already existing?
Or are all you Linux fanbois just gonna dump Skype because it's owned by MS now, and you're leaving due to "principle" - i.e. being retarded?
Just look at their past record. Maybe that strange guy in the park with the prison tattoos really has a puppy in his van.
Or are all you Linux fanbois just gonna dump Skype because it's owned by MS now
They won't have to: Microsoft will likely dump the Linux version anyway.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Basically skype seems to have a *whole* lot of traction/brand recognition. MS wants to control that to prop up their struggling mobile phone play (read: screw over iOS/Android/etc users). Torpedoing Linux support will probably be just side-effect.
My hope is that MS has the causative relationship reversed. Skype is ubiquitous because they endeavour to work on all devices. If Skype becomes an Xbox/Windows/Windows Phone play, I expect their subscriber base to evaporate.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Remains to be seen what they do with the cross platform versions. Microsoft don't have a history of playing nice, ever. I don't even use voice/video chat apps, but this would be enough to make me at least look for a backup option to be on the safe side.
Disclaimer: I don't like Windows, and I don't particularly like MS, but my levels of pettiness have dropped to where I have bought an Xbox (but with the intention of mostly renting the games, or buying at budget prices).
which is totally what she said
all the while, continuing development of all the versions already existing?
If it doesn't make them money MS would be unlikely to continue development of a Linux version. I would not be surprised if the Linux version is not all that profitable for the work that would have to go into it vs. the revenue realised by it (Skype Out etc).
Supporting the competition is something that MS doesn't do lightly. Begrudgingly they have Office for Mac and really that's about as far as it goes these days.
I would say that the Android Skype is reasonably safe for now, since inter-operability there is important to keep market share for Skype (if Android uses changed,to something else a lot of OTHER Skype users would follow I could guess).
Losing a few linux users, unlikely to be much of a problem to MS honchos.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
According to the press release itself: "Microsoft will continue to invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms." However, this is Microsoft, and we know how they operate. This is unlikely to be anything but a ploy to avoid objections from the authorities to the purchase. Once it is too late to stop it, I predict not a single update will go into the Linux and Android versions, and the Mac and iPhone versions will lag behind in features. So the question is what alternatives there are now.
Another question is what Google, Facebook and Cisco will do now. If I were on the board of any of them, I'd certainly be pushing for pooling resources to create a joint venture to compete with Skype on all fronts. Could set up quite the consortium for the money they intended to spend buying Skype themselves.
Interesting times.
Previous history teaches us to be wary. Fool me once, and all that.
The point is that if you've been reliant on an awful lot of things that MS has bought out in the past, you've come unstuck - usually not long after they bought it out. I put a list on The Register already and I can't be bothered to go find it and paste it back in.
And even if true, then the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Watch what MS do. Based on past personal history, I predict that a lot of people who *aren't* complaining and currently *using* Skype won't be using it in the future. You can prove me wrong (for the first time ever, when it comes to MS) in a year's time if that's not the case.
You honestly think that MS are going to continue the Android version of Skype, for instance? That they won't fight tooth-and-nail to stop third-party clients using the Skype network without be "authorised" by MS? That somehow they'll be nice as pie to all those MacOS and Linux users they have currently? You seem to be suggesting that they could even enhance the service.
And, like everyone who's worked in IT for a while and seen how MS has behaved historically, I don't believe it and even if they turn it into the most wonderful, open service in the world, they STILL have a lot of making up until I start to trust their intentions by default.
Retards for having a principle and not wanting to *risk* getting stung? I'm a retard then. A professional one in fact. Strangely, I'm not even using Linux on the desktop either. You don't have to be a fanboi to worry about getting stung, and you don't have to be one to not trust someone's intentions based on past behaviour.
I still have Skype installed. But every update from now will be installed retrospectively once other guinea pigs have a chance to tell me what they changed. And I'm actually researching current alternatives - I'm hoping this might be the impetus needed to forge a decent, ubiquitous, cross-platform and open-source alternative. While Skype was doing what people wanted, there was no need for an alternative - now I, and many others, are looking for one - just in case.
This comment deserves better than the negative moderation points it's received. It's a valid point. The idea of adding Skype to Xbox 360 is interesting.
Now I plead guilty to the charge of disliking anything with the Microsoft brand on it, I'm not sure that makes me 'retarded', just prejudiced. This is why we ignored the Ford Fusion Hybrid when we were looking for a new car last year.
How? It's not an antitrust case. MS doesn't have any presence in the VoIP arena (at least as far as I know.) There's not much to do about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
"The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately"
Basically, once skype is carefully accidentally closed to all but win7, and MS is the monopoly provider of win7, skype will be tied to it.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Could it be an issue if they were to stop making a linux client?
Then they could be using Skype (and it's lack of availability for a competing platform) to strengthen their operating system base and weaken a competing OS.
With the Microsoft/Ford collaboration, what if Microsoft built Skype into the next version of their car software?
Could Microsoft be looking for a 'great convergence' of voice between cell phones, computers, cars, TVs/consoles (Xbox), etc? They have the smarts, but do they have the business vision to pull this off? And if they do, how open/closed would the resulting system be?
Patent Portfolio.
This looks like a move to BLOCK Facebook and/or Google expansion into this area. And when either of these companies move in anyhow, out come the lawsuits.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Skype is but one of many-- albeit one with more sunken capital and assets-- and its functionality can be replicated easily. Microsoft could exclude Linux or even Apple users. That would be silly of them.
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there, and some of them are browser-based rather than P2P. So there is no monopoly-- not that this reason makes Microsoft any more holy. It's more added value for Microsoft. Others can add similar value and reap those benefits, too.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Which is like buying an Apache helicopter and using the 30mm cannon to mow your lawn.
which is totally what she said
Even MSN has a mac client. So does Office.
If Microsoft is trying to get into de VoiP business, they might as well keep aiming at the largest number of platforms possible.
I do believe MS is not trying to get Skype per-se, but their architecture. The common mortal wouldn't know, but Skype has proprietary encryption that still has not been beaten (Russia even wanted to ban Skype), distributed supernodes that make their network really cheap to run (compared to other kinds of architectures) while still working flawlessly over cascading NAT's, for example and a really good VoiP codec (revolutionary, really, it was the first real contender for a PC phone).
With buying skype they'd be getting a whole lot more than business.
MS owns tellme - a once successful voip host/IVR browser. not surprisingly, the company stopped being very successful shortly after MS bought them. coincidence? just maybe, but not likely. i would put money on this ruining skype.
Wikipedia says:
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is an IETF-defined signaling protocol, widely used for controlling multimedia communication sessions such as voice and video calls over Internet Protocol (IP). The protocol can be used for creating, modifying and terminating two-party (unicast) or multiparty (multicast) sessions consisting of one or several media streams. The modification can involve changing addresses or ports, inviting more participants, and adding or deleting media streams. Other feasible application examples include video conferencing, streaming multimedia distribution, instant messaging, presence information, file transfer and online games.
*That's* the alternative.
wait for the bad deed to actually occur before screaming about said bad deed.
Ordinarily, yes. However, in Microsoft's case, they have a demonstrable history of leveraging their "monopoly" to prop up their offerings in other markets ultimately dominating those markets, reducing consumer choice, then leaving the product to stagnate with no other real alternative. IE6 is the premier example of this. They tried to do it with Java but Sun managed to stop them. Personally, I like real competition. The mobile device industry is on fire right now with newer and better products coming out seemingly everyday. Of course there is a fly in the ointment. MS, not content to compete on merit, has made it obvious that they will do anything possible to destroy competition through any means necessary. Skype is an important application for all devices. The last thing we need is to just sit and wait hoping for MS' good will.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there
But your grandma only has one one of them: Skype. Due to the network effect, Skype has an effective monopoly on free phone service. While the barrier to entry in this market is technically low, in the real world filled with real users it's probably insurmountable. It looks like Microsoft thinks that the barrier would take at least $8.5B to overcome; otherwise they'd go with their normal instinct to just copy other vendors' technologies.
Grandma isn't going to want to unlearn Skype and learn how to use a sluggish Flash-based solution, either.
They have huge marketshare, but a monopoly is a different thing. By their presence, they don't have a barrier to market. This is an important distinction. There are great apps (I like ooVoo) that do the same thing. There's a larger user network, and it's become the de facto VoIP app-- not one that was awarded through monopolistic behavior. It's good. But not unkillable/unstoppable by any stretch of the imagination.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
On the other hand, whatever faint hope we had of Skype becoming interoperable with any other system -- SIP in particular -- has basically been dashed. Microsoft is not exactly known for a commitment to interoperability, and I doubt that things will be any different with Skype.
Palm trees and 8
Here is the problem with Ekiga: it is completely unreliable on Windows, and still very much "Beta" on GNU/Linux. When it works, it works...but more often than not, I feel like I fighting against the tide to keep Ekiga operational. Now, for a bunch of neckbeards like myself, that is OK -- perhaps when I have time, I will even submit a patch -- but when my mother sees Ekiga exploding like that, she just says, "Why aren't we using Skype?"
Palm trees and 8
Microsoft is buying a huge user base. They need it, because their own efforts at getting a big social community have otherwise largely failed. Google has one, Apple has one, now Microsoft's bought one.
If this spawns great FOSS VoIP and P2P media distribution infrastructure, so much the better.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Microsoft has been getting a lot better about supporting alternative OSes on non-core products (Silverlight is another example).
Microsoft did not support silverlight on other OSes. They allowed the now defunct mono project by Novel to implement moonlight - a compatible platform.
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there
Due to the network effect, Skype has an effective monopoly on free phone service. While the barrier to entry in this market is technically low, in the real world filled with real users it's probably insurmountable.
Yeah. It's lilke MySpace. I sure wish something would come along to improve on MySpace. But hey, what ya gonna do? They're entrenched.
How is buying a voice over IP product and tying it to windows using their monopoly to bolster offerings in other markets? It seems the other way around unless Skype is a monopoly in your opinion. I think you're a ltitle out of line here. Sometimes businesses do things you don't like, but that doesn't make it illegal or abusive.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Or are all you Linux fanbois just gonna dump Skype because it's owned by MS now, and you're leaving due to "principle" - i.e. being retarded?
Having principles is the same as being retarded? Really? I don't even know if it is possible to live without principles - unless you are a psychopath, that is.
And I'm not even a "linux fanboi" (more of a solaris/BeOS "fanboi").
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I'm calling the police to have them write you a ticket for speeding, because you own a car, and I feel like you might speed, in fact, you've probably gotten a ticket of some sort relating to vehicles in the past demonstrating a history of illegal vehicle use, so waiting until you actually speed to write you a ticket it a waste of time. All police should do this. Just imagine how great it would be when police are able to actually ticket people BEFORE the offense. Next, we should just throw people in jail before they commit crimes, that would be awesome.
How is buying a voice over IP product and tying it to windows using their monopoly to bolster offerings in other markets?
The succinctness with which you answered your own question is almost Koan-worthy.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Intrigue, newsletter, etc.
Until we get a client that can pierce almost any firewall (like Skype does), we are not going anywhere. Any VoIP implementation that requires you to configure router/firewall/access point will fail. I do hate Skype sometimes for using every dirty trick to get around firewall restrictions, but it gets the job done. I'm not certain but I think Skype will run even if only port 80 is open and tunnel everything via HTTP if that's what needed. It will even work if DNS is broken.
--Coder
The only thing laughable is your absurd argument that really boils down to your opinion that a company (MS) that has been convicted of using their monopoly (Windows) to prop up a product (Internet Explorer) in the past to kill a competitor (Netscape) shouldn't be held to a higher level of scrutiny when the potential for that kind of abuse exists again. And the Internet Explorer situation is just one example of many. How about using their windows leverage to force every computer shipped by a manufacturer to have a paid Windows license whether it has the software on it or not? I'm sorry, but some people actually like competition.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Problem lies in the fact that trying someone for "potential crime" opens a HUGE can of worms. Where do you plan to stop? Pre-emptive fines on speeders? Pre-emptive jail sentences for people with history of domestic violence going to a martial arts course?
We have no punishments for thought crime, which is what you describe is about. They can think about crime all they want, but it's the ACT itself that's criminal. Not the thought. Even if precedence of such behaviour exists.
What we do have is harsher punishment for REPEAT OFFENDERS. That is the main consequence of repeating the same crime twice.
Abandoned years ago.
But "Where's the Internet Explorer for Mac?" is akin to "Where's the dung for my sandwich?"
microsoft hopes that integrating a popular voip plugin with office will add more users to the group that say things like, "we need to have an exchange server?".
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
The entire antitrust argument is based on one assumption:
That Microsoft will limit Skype to only run on Microsoft products.
While MS have been assholes in the past, the entire argument hinges on this. If the Linux/OSX/iOS/Android/etc versions all remain and are useable...seriously, who gives a fuck who is running the show.
Now, if they become assholes again & make Skype MS-only, then you have a case. But really...I doubt Microsoft is so fucking stupid to open themselves up to another piece of antitrust hell over Skype.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Here's my wild-ass conspiracy theory. I'm gonna link back to this post if/when it's proven true.
Skype discovered that Apple's Facetime violates their patent(s), and MS bought Skype so that they can sue Appple and cripple the iPhone. This improves Windows Phone's position in the marketplace (which, BTW, finally gets a skype client thanks to this deal).
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Skype just locked in its place as the next Internet Explorer: Microsoft's attempt at locking-in users. Time to find a real standard for this sort of thing.
Even if they do re-construct everything, it has patents. It's not that easy.
Also, skype was thinking of licensing their tech. Maybe Microsoft wants exclusivity on it (by acquiring skype they get the tech for themselves). Maybe they simply want to compete with google voice with a well tested and proven piece of software.
No one will ever know their real motivations... I'd assume it would be "all of the above".
Ip addresses aren't a suitable replacement because there is no gaurantee of their persistance and not every system even has one. Plus they aren't really any easier to remember the phone numbers.
A user@hostname system like with email, skype and in principle* SIP could work for PC to PC calling but isn't very practical for anything involving a standalone phone with a normal phone keypad.
* in practice everyone seems to set up dialplans to use SIP with standard phone numbers and locally defined internal numbers
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register