Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Kills Skype For Asterisk
Avalon73 writes "I've been using Skype for Asterisk (Digium's native Skype client for their PBX software) since it was in beta 2 years ago. Today, I received an email from Digium stating that Skype (read: Microsoft) has decided to end the agreement that made the integration possible, and Digium will stop selling the module on July 26th. Support for us existing users will be there for the next 2 years, with Skype's option to renew at that time, but I'll believe that when I see it. So much for Microsoft's promise not to screw over the existing Skype user base."
It has begun
If you can't connect Skype to SIP, why do you need it? Skype to skype is only useful when both people are on a computer and skype out/in is less capable/dynamic than a custom SIP bridge. I'd imagine this would drive business users away from instead of towards Skype.
Looks like Microsoft went ahead and skipped steps 1 and 2 this time just to make things easier for everybody.
Would be much more fun!
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
You have two whole years, which is a life time in terms of technology, and even after that you can renew. This is just meaningless anti-MS waffle.
The fact that it is now owned by Microsoft will kill Skype in the long run. They will rename it, alienate the rest of the computing world, and alternatives will pop up.
just my prediction.
The Microsoft/Skype deal is nowhere near completion, and Microsoft currently has no say in how Skype runs their business. Also the negotiations on this software were most likely ongoing long before the Microsoft/Skype merger was announced, and most likely a business decisions based on profit margins and longevity. I can't help but wonder why people are so quick to blame Microsoft for issues that they could not possible be responsible for.
not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase. Particularly of paying customers. I use skype for linux. I am not part of the majority, and when they drop support for linux and change the protocols, guess what: I'll be a screwed customer. Customers are not only the majority slice.
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
I guess both of you will have to run windows now.
It is a foreshadowing of things to come, and hence why is so upsetting (Ive never even used Asterisk, honestly).
kiss my as...terisk! Asterisk is a key part of Skype's popularity and is where VOIP and video phone conferencing is trending towards these days. I wonder if this will be the death of Skype?
Linux isn't majority of Skype user base ether.
First they came for communists, but I wasn't one...
On the other hand, skype isn't such a big deal.
Me thinks, could somebody create a Skype alternative service and profit a lot?
Like what is so special in skype? Is it that hard to code another one?
I know that Linux has skype alternatives, but they are all based on SIP standard which is somewhat NAT/firewall unfriendly.
So such alternative app could use their own (and hopefully open) protocol for communication.
I don't buy an argument of Skype user base. It really doesn't matter, cause you use it to talk with your friends.
And really you can guide even a retard to install a program on his system, or do that yourself if you visit your relatives/friends.
So the fact that skype is installed, and $SOME_OTHER_VOIP_CLENT isn't a good argument.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft, that is just troll bait. The deal isn't completed yet, they are awaiting regulatory approval before going through with it, and that is likely months away. This is Skype running as Skype, completely independent from Microsoft. Any interference at this stage and scrutiny would be an infraction even Microsoft wouldn't risk.
Seriously -- Nobody actually believed Microsoft was going to do anything but screw over the user base, did they? Already have my Ekiga account...works well and runs on an open standard.
The big thing is it's microsoft not even waiting a few weeks before yanking support for things. Because they are not a majority does not mean it isn't a huge issue. Next will most likely be the linux client, possibly followed by the android and IOS apps, in the end we could be looking at skype being windows and Windows phone only.
not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase
Yes it does.
Customers are not only the majority slice.
No, but the customer base is. Hence the term base, as in the most substantial part; not the fringe elements or corner cases.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
"............, but I'll believe that when I see it. So much for Microsoft's promise not to screw over the existing Skype user base."
Can you leave your personal commentary out of the article? It ruins our ability to formulate our own opinion.
not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase
Yes it does.
Customers are not only the majority slice.
No, but the customer base is. Hence the term base, as in the most substantial part; not the fringe elements or corner cases.
Actually the userbase is all of the users.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/user+base
Actually, I'm not sure it's a bad thing. After the dominance of Skype is broken, maybe a truly open solution will win.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Like what is so special in skype? Is it that hard to code another one?
Skype was the first to get good market adoption and thus sort of became the de-facto standard so there is a good chance that you can use it to speak to someone. It might not be the best, but it works well enough for most people to not feel the need to change (with all the effort that that entails). In some ways it is like MS Windows, the de-facto desktop standard, not the best but good enough for most people.
not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase.
I find it hard to accept "not the majority of the userbase" is properly representative of "the userbase" in such a way that affecting them can be in any way, shape, or form metaphorically "screwing the userbase".
Or, put differently, if it's not the majority, and not even a large portion, that doesn't at all count as representing the whole. If some Florida state law negatively affects the followers of the Westboro Baptist Church, does that constitute "screwing the United States"?
SIP still seems alive and well though. They get a monthly revenue stream from that though; seems a slightly safer option for Skype users wanting interoperability.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
>>>it certainly doesn't affect the majority. Stop crying over spilled milk.
By this logic, you will keep your mouth shut when Mickeysoft stops supporting Skype for Linux or Mac OSes. Correct? (Somehow I don't believe you will.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Considering just how much existing VoIP crap (including Microsoft's) runs over SIP, has anyone considered that it's possible that Skype simply decided to kill off the third party hack and focus on building native SIP connectivity? It would certainly jibe with their sudden desire to look more appealing to business users, with the ability to plug into virtually any IP-PBX solution in existence (and let's be honest, in the corporate world no-one runs Asterisk).
Funny, if Google had bought Skype and this same thing had happened, people would all be describing it as I just did. But hey, don't let rational thought get in the way of your hate-fest.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
how refusing NEW activations is screwing over EXISTING customers?
How could you honestly expect anything else from MS?
Why because they said something?
They exist to make money not friends, come on people wake up, be real!
Of course they are going to say things you want to hear. But if you're not on the MS platform you can pretty much guarantee that you will be treated like a second or third class citizen (depending on how much of a risk there is to MSs business interests).
MS makes business decisions period. (Good or bad? Only time can tell)
Don't like it? Then find an alternative. There are other options.
Would you be happy with being forced to buy "GM only petrol" for your GM car? Be forced to have a Channel XYZ TV to watch Channel XYZ? Only be able to buy a memory stick for your Sony?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
We got screwed at work after bought Onfolio. First, they discontinued the pro version we bought and were using in Firefox in favor of a free dumbed down IE only version, then they eventually killed that. Wouldn't mind too much, but they also turned off the activation servers, meaning if we have to reinstall Windows due to, say, a virus, we can't reinstall the copy Onfolio we had bought. I guess we hit the "Extinguish" stage of the business plan.
#include <signature.h>
And this is the reason why Microsoft no longer leads, and is behind Apple and IBM in market cap. Although Apple and IBM aren't perfect, these days, who wants to go with technology from a company who doesn't support anything other than what they produce, which is such an "old school" way of thinking. Microsoft - if you want to thrive, change your culture (starting at the top).
Personally, I hope you continue as you are and die a horrible death :-)
Yes, but my point is that there is very little vendor lock-up in regard to skype.
To switch all you have to do is to tell your relatives to do few clicks with their mouses,
and like you can even guide them.
(Assuming that skype alternative runs on windows of course).
Its is even easier that switching browsers, because, browsers often have to display poor coded HTML pages that were tested on IE only, so user might complain that his new browser doesn't render that or that program.
With switch from skype its dead easy. He will just know that to talk with me he needs to start $PROGRAM (and he can even keep using skype).
So as soon as better that skype alternative emerges, it can capture millions of users.
If you can't connect Skype to SIP, why do you need it?
But you can connect Skype to SIP: Skype Connect for SIP
I KNEW IT!! I FSCKING KNEW IT!!
I said the day they announced the MS/Skype buyout, that MS would trash Skype and withdraw support for open source users. You watch -- the Linux client will die, though I know it's laying abandoned and starving already, and so will the Android client. Farewell, Skype of old, we knew ye...
That definition is cited as referencing "The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, (C) Denis Howe 2010 http://foldoc.org/" whoever that is.
And Mr. Howe seems to have taken liberties with the root word of base, which means "the fundamental part of something." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/base
Moreover TFL says "This change should not affect any existing users of Skype for Asterisk," which doesn't conflict with your cited definition.
In other words, all your base are belong to me.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Exactly why I'm very worried about this. Here's my prediction just in case it really happens, so I can link yo it and appear to be a keen industry analyst: over the next year MS will start changing Skype's protocol, until it's incompatible with current software. The Windows version will (of course) always be up to date while other platforms will lag behind, according to their userbase: macos will be fine, android and ios a bit less so, and Linux will simply be forgotten. This will enable them to slowly kill competition without scaring the userbase into adopting an alternative. Fortunately Google talk now works on more devices with voice, so there might be a decent alternative in the near future.
This is probably NOT Microsoft's fault. Skype was loosing money and originally planned for an IPO if they were not solicited by Google, Facebook and then Microsoft. The business decision was probably made way before Microsoft's deal.
You're quite to blame Microsoft because you had a bias, and it's understandable given the situation.
Up until now, this form of use has been an option for users. Whether they partook of it or not.
Now it is being removed as an option.
Therefore, if any given user of Skype attempts to exercise this option in the future, they're screwed.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Here's my prediction just in case it really happens, so I can link yo it and appear to be a keen industry analyst:
Damn shame about the spelling mistake :( unless you're some kind of hip-hop guy...
im a web developer, and i have been contacting with my clients through skype when they chose it. now, i will be moving out of skype and to other instant messenger / voip applications. i have numerous clients, and will probably have a lot of clients into the future at this rate, and i have the clout and goodwill to require them to contact me without skype.
im doing this, to prevent experiencing usual microsoft bullshit like one regularly encounters while dealing with them.
enjoy your new acquisition microsoft. without me and my clients.
Read radical news here
that are driving me to go elsewhere for my tech news. I mean come on, it's obvious Microsoft has nothing to do with this, they don't own the company and won't for many months, and can't dictate to Skype who they work with now. WTF is Slashdot posting obvious bullshit like this?
Why even post anything at all about Microsoft? Are they relevant to you? You folks act like the kid brother still. Grow the fuck up already.
More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.
It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.
Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.
The only thing SIP is really lacking is NAT traversal, right?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No, by my logic I'll complain when they actually cut a Skype service that people use and was free to start with. You do know what Asterisk is, correct? Besides, comparing this to cutting support to an OS is ridiculous. Sure, you could see it as a foreshadowing of what may be to come, but it's not the same thing at all. Also what's with the hypersensitivity? Troll? Really? Oh wait- it wasn't because I offended your milk, it was because I didn't bash Microsoft directly!
It's not that easy. I seldom use Skype to communicate with friends and never with relatives. I use it mostly for business, to get in touch with my customers and my coworkers (both chat and voice). I can't tell them that they have to start using a new messaging platform only to communicate with me. It will be very inconvenient and they'll invite me to call them with a phone which will cost me money and I'll still be left without a chat. They'll hate to have to spend money to call me so this is bad for my business.
So either all the world move to a Skype alternative or I'm effectively locked in. This is worse than MS Office's lock in, because there are other programs that are compatible with its file formats but there is nothing that is compatible with Skype.
For Crysis Warhead, there were many more downloads of the patch, than purchasers of the game:
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/crytek-warms-up-consoles?page=0%252C0%2C1
You have two years to find an alternative. I think you'll manage.
Or disgruntled people among the executive ranks of Skype knew that people would come up with conspiracy theories by playing such a hand and are now cackling as not only do they walk away with millions but get to see Microsoft painted as the bad guy yet again!
Seriously, some people need to realise that microsoft is a BUSINESS. Asterisk = compete with Lync. Skype = now microsoft owned. Why the hell would they continue development of one of their products to help kill another one of their products?
Is this crap for asterisk / asterisk users? Yes. However Microsoft would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to their shareholders if they were to continue killing the market for their own product(s) by enabling/maintaining it.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
LMFAO....
Before this thread I never even heard of Asterisk before, and after this probably never will again.
Personally I find it highly amusing.
Linux user: MICROSOFT SUCKS..MICROSOFT IS THE EVIL EMPIRE....DIE MICROSOFT DIE.... (repeat for years)
and now Linux users are surprised that Microsoft would drop support for Linux in a product it will soon own.
And right now noone is even sure if this is microsofts doing or not (blame them anyway its fun)
The deal isn't even close to completion yet, so why again am I supposed to read Skype as Microsoft when they are making moves like this?
This has to be some of the most apparent anti-Microsoft slant I've ever seen on Slashdot to date, and I've seen quite a bit of it. Please don't troll in the summary.
This is Skype running as Skype, completely independent from Microsoft.
Unless you work for one of those two companies you cannot possibly know that.
Any interference at this stage and scrutiny would be an infraction even Microsoft wouldn't risk.
Having been involved myself with a few mergers and the negotiations thereof I can definitely say that it is definitely plausible that Microsoft would have requested killing the product. I have no idea if they actually did and no proof either but it is certainly possible and wouldn't be terribly surprising. Such conditions can be explicit parts of the deal or they can be simple verbal requests. It's not at all unusual for companies being acquired to start making changes before the deal is done, particularly if they do not expect regulatory approval to be a problem. Frankly I don't really see any compelling reason for the DOJ or other regulating bodies to interfere with this merger. (not liking Microsoft isn't sufficient grounds) I'm quite certain Microsoft and Skype's lawyers and finance geeks have looked into it pretty carefully.
It's equally plausible it has nothing to do with the merger. I don't know either way but I'm pretty sure no one else reading this knows either.
"In terms of phone technology, where you might install a phone system and not really touch it for 10 years... 2 years is very short."
And your typical big telco equipment has a lifetime measured in decades.
And modern POTS lines are more-or-less backwards compatible with phones from 1930 or earlier.
The computer industry could learn a thing or two here.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Yes, that's why this has happened before MS has any operational control of Skype because the merger hasn't finished yet.
Even if it was not a formal part of the deal, Skype is perfectly capable of reading the tea leaves regarding what direction Microsoft intends to go post acquisition. They have been talking to each other after all. It's perfectly plausible that Skype killed the product at the request (possibly implied request) of Microsoft. It's equally plausible it has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft. However the timing does lead one to wonder. It's not at all unusual for companies to start making changes in advance of a merger, particularly if they expect regulatory approval to be a non-issue.
Frankly there are plenty of other avenues for VOIP so I don't really give a crap either way.
This is exactly like the time when my sister blamed me for turning off her coffee pot while I was still an hour's drive away from her place.
Wow! That's an impressively bad analogy even for slashdot.
What about Obelix, did he want Skype dead aswell?
Dominance? Seriously?
The only people who use Skype are people too cheap to pay for a real phone call. No one anywhere that matters uses Skype to communicate. It may dominate the 'shitty VoIP services' market, but again, no one cares.
VoIP over the Internet is a retarded plan until the network infrastructure has proper QoS support, until then its a crap shoot while you hope that congestion doesn't ruin the call or disconnect you.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
No upgrades or bug fixes?
Lynx is Microsoft's new "all your communications through us" initiative. Adding Skype to their portfolio allows them to have Lync clients on all sorts of interesting devices so they can say "Now you can replace your stinky old Asterix PBX with a shiny new VOIP system with the widest device support possible to integrate into your new Exchange, Sharepoint, and Office installation. PAY US NAO."
http://lync.microsoft.com/en-us/Pages/default.aspx
"Before this thread I never even heard of Asterisk before, and after this probably never will again."
I'm guessing you have never done anything with telephony.
I find it hard to believe that you're not just trolling. But on the off chance that you're not...
My company uses Skype to conference call with overseas clients. It's nothing to do with the avoided cost of a 'real' phone call (which is insignificant compared to consultant time) and everything to do with universal availability, video conference ability and ease of use making it a better option than a 'real' phone call.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Microsoft didn't do anything here, they don't control Skype yet. But since when did accurate information get in the way of a good bias.
... facepalm.
Signature has left the building.
What about Obelix, did he want Skype dead aswell?
Nah, he just wants a nice, juicy sanglier.
And guess what's going to happen to the Skype support in my Nokia n900 ... Even you, forgot about it.
Pointing out that MS doesn't have a history of complying with standards or using Microsoft's own requirements for Office Communications Server 2007 (look them up if you don't beleive me)?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Actually the Google Voice (former Grand Central) core switch is Yate with a special call control module that interface with the business logic.
I'm guessing you have never done anything with telephony.
I'm sure he's a highly competent sysadmin providing filesharing and printersharing for tens of people.
-- Linux user #369862
How to try co catch a foothold in a communication based market by giving the message to the world that anybody using anything else than windows should see if he can live with google talk or competitors. yes, thats you, android and iphone users; better switch now and send the skype contacts your new address.
Microsoft has been screwing over their existing user base since AT LEAST Windows 95.
Yes and no. The initial setup does require some central system.
Skype NAT Hole Punching
Fear is the mind killer.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft, but thanks for DESPERATELY trying to blame them. The deal hasn't even gone through, and besides this probably was decided within Skype months ago. You're right though, this is probably just the evil Microsoft hard at work again.
You're a moron if you didn't see this coming. You're a moron if you have EVER trusted Microsoft for any quality product or service. Because Skype was never open-source, I have been gradually nudging my family and friends to switch to Google. But the minute I heard Microsoft bought-out Skype, I immediately mailed everyone on my Skype contacts list that I wouldn't be using it anymore, and that they should switch to Google or never see me online again. It always makes me laugh when people who use Microsoft (or any non-open-source) products/services complain about a feature change or a service discontinuation.
The Equity firm that is selling Skype owns Avaya. I am guessing that the decision came from this direction.
Wrong metaphor, nigger.
Learn English, you retarded fuckwad.
Does a database only contain the most substantial part of data? How about a codebase?
Fundamental also means "of or pertaining to the nether regions/buttocks". Somewhat appropriate when conversing with you.
We've been using the Skype Connect business service for several months. Works great on our Switchvox (asterisk-based phone server with nice GUI). All it takes is to connect as a standard SIP client to Skype after setting up the account with them.
It seems they are just simplifying their offerings, as you don't need any sort of plugin to asterisk to accomplish this.
The only ``intuitive'' interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Well this will turn out to be better for Skype connect and other features. Now there will be more effort put in to features like Skype In that will expand the availability of virtual numbers that forward to Skype.
www.flynumber.com
Microsoft will move skype to be a hotmail addition. If you want Skype, you will want hotmail, and you will want skype credits, then you must purchase from the Microsoft store, etc. etc. etc.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
A great deal of your complaints with the PSTN stem from business decisions, not engineering ones. And don't get me wrong -- they're my complaints, too. I'm no fan of corporate planning or the business office, believe me. I certainly don't claim we should emulate everything the telcos do. I note I didn't claim that in my post, either -- you're building a straw man and then attacking that. The point I was making still stands: One thing the telcos can do right, when they put their mind to it, is robust, scalable, long-lived engineering. In the pee sea world, we have to replace technology every five years or so, even if it's working perfectly, just because it isn't supported any longer. For all the strengths of the technology, that aspect I'm not a fan of.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
You probably have a valid argument when it comes to cost impact, I'll grant you that. But I'd counter that the upgrade treadmill can also be quite expensive. And while better engineering would cost more, it's one-time cost. Operating and repair costs never stop. Which is not to say it's for everybody. My complaint here would be that those of us who are more forward-thinking don't even have the option of paying more upfront for better engineering. It's planned-obsolesce or nothing.
No, I don't expect anything to change, but I can still bitch about it on the Internet. :)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.