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
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.
I guess both of you will have to run windows now.
Asterix and Obelix killing Microsoft would be fun and enjoyable indeed.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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.
Actually the userbase is all of the users.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/user+base
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?
Is anyone surprised? Microsoft has a long history of bad ideas and costly projects met with very bad reviews. However, they usually keep pumping money into them until they are successful. If that doesn't work they just use their monopoly to make sure people use their software anyway^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W in an attempt to make people use their software.
which is a life time in terms of technology
A lifetime in terms of computer technology. 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.
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.
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!
End to end communication when both endpoints are behind NAT is a tricky problem. I don't know the skype protocol, did skype actually solve the problem, are the sessions truly end to end, NAT to NAT without the central server doing any proxying?
SIP by itself cannot solve the problem when both endpoints are behind a NAT without specifically forwarded ports, but it does work well when properly configured and only one side is NAT'd, which is classically the case with any protocol.
Halfway decent is hard to define. If it works, it's halfway decent at the minimum, heh. Most of your off the shelf consumer linksys, netgear, etc routers will handle passing sip just fine. Every so often you may run into a box that just fails miserably.
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
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