Slashdot Mirror


FTC Approves Microsoft's Takeover of Skype

BigCorona writes "The US Federal Trade Commission said that it has approved Microsoft's $8.5 billion cash takeover of voice and video-over-IP provider Skype. Microsoft officially announced its intent to acquire Skype back on May 10 and since then users have been taking to Twitter to blame Microsoft for Skype's intermittent service. Now, with Reuters reporting that there has been antitrust approval of the deal, users will be able to turn to Microsoft when asking questions of Skype's sometimes-spotty service."

153 comments

  1. So.... the change is.... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    instead of not getting an answer from Skype we're now going to get no answer from MS?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So.... the change is.... by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps one change will be that PostgreSQL will no longer be moving forward so fast in the realm of free and open source high availability databases. Skype uses PostgreSQL for it's backend and has created SkyTools for managing replication and failover for a large numbers of servers. It's the biggest user I'm aware of, but I don't follow sql development that closely.

      Maybe like hotmail running linux they will try to port it over to Azure or something. They could learn a lot.

      More likely this gives the automatic ties to a global communication network that already has ties to the telecommunication systems. Windows Phones use skype instead of sms. Audio and video calls and conferencing at the cost of bandwidth. Huge installed user base on desktop, PC, iPhone and Android.

      Like a game of go they just did a really neat move that opens up a lot of new possibilities for the future.

    2. Re:So.... the change is.... by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe like hotmail running linux they will try to port it over to Azure or something.

      Hotmail was running on FreeBSD. And when Microsoft took over Hotmail, they had a ton of problems when they tried to move it over to MS-only infrastructure. And then the clean Hotmail UI was replaced by the butt-ugly, commercials-encumbered abomination that Hotmail was up until a few years ago.

        It's still an abomination compared to the original Hotmail, by the way. I stopped using it shortly after the MS takeover, and had no reason to look back. I shudder to think what will happen to Skype.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:So.... the change is.... by The+O+Rly+Factor · · Score: 0

      Skype uses PostgreSQL for it's backend and has created SkyTools for managing replication and failover for a large numbers of servers.

      So, converting a PostgreSQL backend to MSSQL? I predict the suicide rate for DBAs is about to skyrocket.

    4. Re:So.... the change is.... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      These days you don't have to use the interface at all. Works perfectly with both outlook (which I like quite a bit) and even the baked in email program for android. I see the Hotmail UI maybe once a year.
      I'm not saying the Hotmail UI isn't horrible, just that there's no need to use it now days.

    5. Re:So.... the change is.... by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

      Perhaps one change will be that PostgreSQL will no longer be moving forward so fast in the realm of free and open source high availability databases.

      Let's see a small selection of other people using Pg.

      US State Department
      whitepages.com
      IMDB
      Fujitsu
      Sun
      Apple
      RedHat
      Junipet
      Cisco
      NTT Data

      I'm pretty sure most of these companies produce a lot more contributions to Pg then Skype ever did. Not to mention there's quite a few failover/replication suites for Pg

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    6. Re:So.... the change is.... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That will be more complicated. Hotmail was fungible it was completely interoperable with other providers so the main pain was getting people to use the new address.

      Skype is a little more complicated because you can't just drop in any replacement you want, and really if you're wanting a replacement, you probably want more than to just replace the client with something else, there are some downsides to the protocol as well.

    7. Re:So.... the change is.... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Only SQL Server is superior to PostgreSQL in almost every way. But yeah, those poor, poor admins.

    8. Re:So.... the change is.... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>Hotmail was running on FreeBSD. And when Microsoft took over Hotmail, they had a ton of problems when they tried to move it over to MS-only infrastructure.

      And moved it back. I had a friend working at Hotmail from 2004-2009 or so. He was hired as a UNIX programmer, to work on their backend stuff.

      You can use adblockers to remove the ads from Hotmail. It's not bad - they have copied a lot of features from gmail by now. =)

    9. Re:So.... the change is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder what effect Microsoft will have on Skype. I mean, will Microsoft try to intervene or leave them be and just partake of the profits? Or maybe some side-ventures without affecting the protocal.

      Because what I'm worried about is those of us who have Skype phones, like the CIT400, might end up with a brick down the line.

    10. Re:So.... the change is.... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Not so sure about that, it really depends on which features and language extensions are used with PostgreSQL. If it's a lit of data with peer distribution, MS-SQL could be a pretty drop in replacement. The reality is, it depends. People with enough knowledge of both PostgreSQL and MS-SQL (I refuse to call it "SQL Server" without an MS prefix) to migrate a complicated DB application (meaning code in the DB) are few and far between.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    11. Re:So.... the change is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BSD licensed things are not a big deal. Microsoft has other merged products using it.

    12. Re:So.... the change is.... by Technician · · Score: 1

      We dropped Skype due to the uncertain immediate future. We moved to SIP instead. There are several providers (not all eggs in one basket) with free SIP addresses and SIP to SIP calling. Many competing providers provide connection to PTSN at various rates and plans. Again, this is not a monopoly by anybody. Only the providers closly bundled with a cable company are enjoying monopoly rates. Almost anybody else has lower rates and more features.

      Vontage gives you just a phone at home. Other SIP providers can provide DID (Direct inward dial), Multipresence (home and work locations, or home and cell phone, are extensions of each other), and many other features. Some providers provide service only so you can own your own device (BYOD) and not toss it in the trash when you change providers. Video phone is supported by many SIP providers.

      To get started with a free SIP account and soft phone (Nothing to buy) look for free softphones that are not locked to a provider. I'm using Ekiga on Ubuntu with a headset on my netbook with no problems. There are other providers and versions for other operating systems, so pick one.
      http://ekiga.org/

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    13. Re:So.... the change is.... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Both MSSQL and Postgres are pretty SQL-92 standards compliant. The language is virtually drop-in compatible. It's MySQL that sucks balls and interoperates with nothing (seriously, selecting random rows for a GROUP BY query?!?)

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    14. Re:So.... the change is.... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Having used both rather intensively. SQL Server and PostgreSQL are neither superior to the other. I found PostgreSQL to be Faster, more flexible, then SQL Server. However SQL Server TSQL is far more direct then pgSQL, for stored procedures, and having to hunt and peck for different stored procedure languages in Postgres While seems like a good idea in theory, leads to a bunch of different languages that seem to support different things making it a hunt and peck game to see what can do what and where.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Surprised? by line-bundle · · Score: 1

    No.

    1. Re:Surprised? by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      So FTC is rubber stamping?

  3. "Preemptive" by tgd · · Score: 2, Informative

    *facepalm*

    Premature. English isn't that hard, kids.

    1. Re:"Preemptive" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      The comma placement gives that statement an air of non-sequitur, bananas.

    2. Re:"Preemptive" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like "preemptive", it conjures up a video of a Steve Ballmer press conference being replaced by a fast-scrolling stream of angry tweets.

    3. Re:"Preemptive" by Radak · · Score: 1

      This is why we can't have nice words.

    4. Re:"Preemptive" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or.... perhaps the summary writer actually did mean preemptive?

    5. Re:"Preemptive" by multisync · · Score: 1

      If the gp's name was bananas, your sentence would have made perfect sense.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    6. Re:"Preemptive" by Dracos · · Score: 1

      Next on CNN!

    7. Re:"Preemptive" by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Probably not, since that word is no longer in the summary.

      Now it just makes no sense.

  4. Skype's lifespan? by Nynaeve70 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wouldn't be surprised if people aren't forced to use Windows Live to access Skype and go through the msn messenger. I fully expect Skype to be dead very, very shortly.

    1. Re:Skype's lifespan? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1, Funny

      And be only availabe with the Windows Ultimate edition thus forcing users into an expensive upgrade.
      They have to get that whole shed load of money back somehow don't they?

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    2. Re:Skype's lifespan? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Just wait. I doubt MS will do such a retarded thing. The most likely plan is integrating it across all their platforms, including Windows, phones, consoles, and so forth. Leaping to ridiculous conclusions that requires them to spunk $8.5bn up the wall just to piss off non-Windows users and shrink their user-base massively is, in the words of BigCorona, ridiculously "preemptive".

    3. Re:Skype's lifespan? by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft may be greedy and all, but that's very unlikely. Skype has been a consumer-oriented technology trying to upsell to companies (a bit like the anti virus companies of the day yonder). Expect this to be available to all Windows versions, except perhaps "Starter". However, expect it only to be available for Windows 7. Linux support will be lackluster (it wasn't already stellar in the first place) and be abandoned because of "lack of interest". The OS X version will be maintained but will always be feature wise behind and Apple will simply start a competing technology.

      What I could see, is that it gets bundled with Microsoft Office or so... Under the guise of "collaboration" tool.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    4. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I give them about a year to do it. Microsoft has a proven track record. Microsoft partnerships between "peers" are terminal.

    5. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Spot on IMHO.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    6. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Apple doesn't need to start a competing technology, they already have their own proprietary tech - FaceTime.

    7. Re:Skype's lifespan? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I do imagine they'll drop linux support entirely, but beyond that... they couldn't risk the damage to their new business from dropping support for anything more popular. I would guess that, as you suggest, they may want to intigrate it into the xbox. Why not? Xbox + kinect would make a good videophone, and could use the xbox's existing contacts management.

    8. Re:Skype's lifespan? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      You're probably more or less right. If Microsoft makes Skype a Windows-only program, they will not only alienate Linux and Mac users, but also Android and iPhone users. This would really make the acquisition pretty much pointless, since there's not much point in cutting off revenue streams.

      What MS almost certainly will do, however, is fail to pass on any value they might (hypothetically) succeed in adding to the product to non-Windows users. This is fairly unlikely to make any difference to me, since I only use the voice and IM capabilities of the technology, which aren't really that bad in terms of quality and reliability.

    9. Re:Skype's lifespan? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      There you go... My wife is the Apple user in the household, I'm not all that up to date about their technologies. They only need to make it cross-platform, so Apple users can communicate with the lesser lifeforms on this planet and they have a Skype killer.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    10. Re:Skype's lifespan? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Depends on why they bought Skype. If they bought it just for technology, then there is less incentive to piss off current customers. I do expect nonWindows versions to suffer support problems and less frequent updates. Linux versions may be stopped altogether.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Skype's lifespan? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      Given that (according to Wikipedia) Microsoft has paid out 32 times Skype's operating profits for the acquisition, I would be inclined to guess (or rather hope) that they might have something more in mind than shutting the door on competitors. Ballmer might act the buffoon from time to time, but if he made any serious attempt to operate against shareholders' interests for purely capricious reasons, I suspect he might be in swift contact with the business end of a boot.

    12. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahoy! Unintended double negative on the horizon captain!

    13. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Rennt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which is pretty much worthless. If you are not multi-platform in this space nobody wants to know about it. The question is - does MS understand this, or is it going to run Skype into the ground trying to make it Windows exclusive.

    14. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most analysts suggest this was mostly a tax dodge to repatriate foreign profits into non-taxable assets that can later be counted as an expense against future earnings. US companies leave large piles of cash overseas to avoid taxes, which makes dividend seeking stock holders angry.

    15. Re:Skype's lifespan? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      You mean like Google Talk?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    16. Re:Skype's lifespan? by tsotha · · Score: 2

      What technology does Skype have that Microsoft doesn't already have or can't develop for a tiny fraction of the Skype acquisition?

    17. Re:Skype's lifespan? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      My guess is that MS will push into the SIP provider space with Exchange/AD integration similar to corporate messenger while continuing free/paid options for consumers.. I do see a drop of the Linux support and integration with Live Messenger.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    18. Re:Skype's lifespan? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Google Talk has video and audio? I mean, I use Google Talk daily in Pidgin, but that's all text...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    19. Re:Skype's lifespan? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The same question could be asked of music player technology, mobile software, and tablet software. MS has had less than stellar success with their internal projects; buying something external that works may have been easier. The ultimate motives of MS are only known to themselves. Remember this is the same MS that tried to buy Yahoo. What was the ultimate purpose of that acquisition?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:Skype's lifespan? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      It's not technology: it's a well-known brand and a huge user base.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    21. Re:Skype's lifespan? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      The same question could be asked of music player technology, mobile software, and tablet software. MS has had less than stellar success with their internal projects; buying something external that works may have been easier.

      Buying external products is easier because you buy the customers along with the product. Most people tend to pick a tool and then continue to use it as long as it meets their needs. That's true even as better products enter the marketplace. Overcoming that inertia is difficult, and usually only happens if there's a price difference or when conditions change such that people come to expect a feature the existing tool doesn't provide.

      I once worked at a company that made warehouse management software. We had a few dozen large customers which purchased our product to manage their distribution centers. One of our larger competitors bought us. Well, it was a "merger of equals", technically, otherwise my stock options would have vested at the premium price they were paying. Not that I'm bitter.

      Anyway, the new owners essentially threw our product out. At first blush it doesn't make sense - they bought a software company, immediately deep-sixed its software, and laid off almost everyone who worked there. Basically they retained a small team to support existing customers so as not to lose any. What they wanted was the ongoing business relationship we had with our customers. It took a few years building out an upgrade path, but eventually they had everyone on their original product line. At which point they could afford to spend almost twice as much money on development and marketing without affecting existing profit margins, and they could afford more depth in their support organization. They had enough money coming in from enough different places they could afford to do some "wouldn't it be cool if..." projects. They ended up far better off as a result of the "merger".

      I agree Microsoft has been unable to capitalize on its dominant desktop OS market position in a whole slew of related markets, but I don't think it's a question of technology. You can already make voice calls through the MS IM client, for instance, and the quality is comparable to that of Skype. Microsoft's problem is that people are already using Skype, they're reasonably happy with it, and it's a market that benefits from a network effect. If all your friends have Skype, you're not going to switch to MSN without convincing everyone else to do the same. And why would you? Beyond that Microsoft isn't "cool" (which is really just another network effect), so every new customer is more expensive. But are there key areas of expertise Microsoft lacks in this competition? I doubt it.

      Remember this is the same MS that tried to buy Yahoo. What was the ultimate purpose of that acquisition?

      A Yahoo! acquisition would make a lot of sense for Microsoft for the same reason it made sense to buy my warehouse management employer: you make money in software by selling the same thing to more people. Over the years the company has poured billions into MSN and Bing in an attempt to challenge Google, and Yahoo! could very well give it the critical mass it needs to succeed.

    22. Re:Skype's lifespan? by heypete · · Score: 1

      Yes. At least the Gmail-based one does (not sure about the Google Talk client itself).

    23. Re:Skype's lifespan? by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is quite happy to cut off a revenue stream if they think they can harm an alternative platform.

      See, for example, their purchase of Virtual PC from Connectix. Pretty much every purchase of Virtual PC also meant the purchase of a Windows license. Nevertheless, they bought it and killed it just to deprive Mac users of the ability to use the occasional Windows App. Also, there's Halo. Before microsoft bought Bungiee, Halo was going to be simultaneously released for all platforms, including the Macintosh. Gates put a stop to that right quick. And Halo wasn't made available for Mac until years later and in a poorly-done and poorly-performing port.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    24. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, just like Apple does, neither of them are good at developing great things from scratch so they take/buy existing things to integrate and improve upon.

    25. Re:Skype's lifespan? by tsa · · Score: 1

      I guess they will make it Windows exclusive and kill Skype in the process.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    26. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Technician · · Score: 1

      SIP is already a competing technology. Most SIP to SIP phone calls are free just like Skype to Skype. SIP to PTSN has fees just like Skype in and Skype out.

      This page has a full range of SIP clients for the Mac.
      http://www.pure-mac.com/voip.html

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    27. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Personally, I actually don't think that at all. If anything, they'll integrate Exchange/OCS/Lync/whatever they're calling it these days, allow you to federate your unified communications servers using Skype, then try and use that to bludgeon people into forking out money to Microsoft for their inter-system phone links rather than to the telco or to some SIP trunk provider, etc. Then integrate it into Windows Phone, and they've pretty much got a captive market using Microsoft Skype on iPhone, Android, Windows Phone, Windows, and OS X (which has Office, so it might actually improve on Mac).

      Alternatively, they'll ignore Skype completely save for using the protocol as the basis for the next gen of Windows Live Messenger and Office Communicator.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    28. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Virtually no one is good at developing (great) things from scratch. The truly inspired and creative geniuses are few and far between.

    29. Re:Skype's lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unusually for a Microsoft acquisition Skype are going to remain as an independent division run by the current Skype CEO who need only report to Ballmer. This needn't turn out like other Microsoft acquisitions, Skype could conceivably carry on much like they are now, perhaps just working more closely with the rest of Microsoft to integrate it into Microsoft products. Of course this doesn't rule out the possibility that Ballmer himself will make them do stupid shit, it just reduces the likelihood of it being done.

  5. Linux Version by doubleplusungodly · · Score: 2

    There goes the Linux version of Skype (not that it was good, but you can expect it to lag further behind than the other platform versions or cease to exist altogether).

    --
    ---
    1. Re:Linux Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have to compile some scrappy program from source and talk to the other six users over an unsupported modified protocol.

    2. Re:Linux Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's hope Google steps up. Google Talk sucks as a plugin and it never worked well for me over Pidgin/Empathy/OtherUniversalApp,

    3. Re:Linux Version by paradxum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      you may laugh, but it is BECAUSE of the linux version that I and my entire family use skype.

      The reason, it's simple. 3 of the 6 family members use either linux or mac.

      What that means is 3 platforms all able to video chat. We don't care about versions or the "latest" features. If linux or mac support is dropped, we'll have to find something different. Video support just works on all the platforms with skype.

    4. Re:Linux Version by kyrre · · Score: 1

      You can use Google Talk with the video and voice plugin.

    5. Re:Linux Version by Teun · · Score: 2
      It is a native install on my N900 and it just works.

      Lets hope someone at MS does not purposely introduce an incompatibility in the other versions.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:Linux Version by Crasoose · · Score: 2

      I actually had to use linux recently for some time and I found the linux version to be very refreshing. I'm not sure whether it's because of lack of updates or just a different design set, but at least in the linux version you don't have gigantic mandatory display pictures in each conversation window.

    7. Re:Linux Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use Google Talk with the video and voice plugin.

      Not outside of the US.

    8. Re:Linux Version by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      As an AC said before me, that currently doesn't work outside the US, for some reason best known to Google. But there are many (myself included) who consider video calls to be something of an intrusion; coping with international calls with an 8 to 10 hour time difference is unlikely to present me at my best, whatever that might be, and I (for one) choose to spare my friends and relations.

    9. Re:Linux Version by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      I use both pretty regularly (Linux on my laptop, Windows on my desktop, probably about equal use). I like the Linux UI better, but the software is clearly inferior in an absolute sense. It's much more likely to freeze video, distort audio, etc. It could be hardware differences I suppose, but the two systems are pretty comparable. Don't get me wrong, It's great to have anything that lets me video chat with my parent (Windows) and wife (Mac). The software is decent and usable, but clearly not as a high a priority as other clients.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    10. Re:Linux Version by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      It works fine outside of the US to talk to other users...
      What doesn't work, is being able to route calls to/from regular phones with it, although you can integrate it into asterisk and handle call routing yourself.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:Linux Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? It works quite well for me, even with a spotty internet connection. It's a miracle compared to Skype or MagicJack or any of the other crap I've tried.

    12. Re:Linux Version by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Why not?

  6. Skype - headed to a quick end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Skype -- seems destined, now, to head the way that everything else MSFT has headed. I don't actually know where that is, because so many pieces of tech have fallen into a void.

    What are the alternatives? Yes, I'll pay, and no, it doesn't need to be open-source, but it does need to provide voice and video, and compatibility across multiple platforms, as well as chat (all of the things that Skype is so great for).

    And, MSFT, in case you're reading this, no, I won't sign up if it requires me to have a Me account (or whatever you're calling it these days).

  7. Alternatives? by peterhil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, what alternatives does Skype have that work on Mac, Linux, FreeBSD and Windows? Preferably Open Source.

    1. Re:Alternatives? by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 2

      It's no accident that your question hasn't gotten any replies. I don't understand why there isn't such a program. Most people would be happy with a cross-platform program that allows for computer-to-computer video conferencing. That's pretty easy:

      -record audio
      -record video
      -transit/receive
      -playback audio
      -display video

      Use a Skype-like distributed phonebook, so you don't have to have any centralized servers (or very, very few). Later, add a plugin system that is flexible enough to allow third-party companies to add support for computer-to-phone and phone-to-computer.

    2. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Talk (not open source, but works across Win/Lin/Mac)
      http://www.google.com/support/chat/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=159499

      SIP - Open source linux clients available which can be connected to a number of SIP providers out there.
      http://www.sipbroker.com/

    3. Re:Alternatives? by jawtheshark · · Score: 2

      That's pretty easy:

      If it really were that easy, it would exist. Superficially, you have indeed described what is necessary to do the deed and you claim that the rest is just implementation details. Well it's those "details" that make it hard. Think echo cancellation, and stuff like that. We have SIP, which can technically of the audio part. I don't know all that much about SIP except being able to configure hard-phones and asterisk servers, but I guess one could provide video as a SIP extension.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    4. Re:Alternatives? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Video is supported in SIP. The problem with SIP is, it works poorly with firewalls, this is why IAX2 exists (that also supports video and is more likely to be usable without giant central servers).

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    5. Re:Alternatives? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Finally a reason to get IPv6 to everyone ;-)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    6. Re:Alternatives? by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      1. Plugin systems are the source of all evils. Instead of doing something properly, you have halfbaked plugins conflicting over the implention. If plugins are going to be allowing, they must be approved. Adding plugins for the sake of "lol lets makre sure they are not forced to do a proper implention" is a really bad idea.
      If what you are proposing is not a "plugin" but rather a set of spesific pipes, it could work.

      2. You forgot adding "a sane user account scheme" to that list.
      Something like battle.net for warcraft III, or what skype has, all you ask is "whats your skype name", and you get the answer "It is X" instead of "It is X, and then it is this spesific mailserver thingy at the end".
      Fragmentation IS bad.

      3. You forgot "it must under no circumstances require to be configed to work" on the list of requirements.

      As for why something like this does not exist?
      If you forced all the people from the different VoIP and IM lib projects together, you could have the manpower to actually make something like this.
      A few idealists can not do this, because it requires expertize in several areas instead of 4-5.

    7. Re:Alternatives? by JonySuede · · Score: 2

      sip is a signalling protocol, it does not care about the data stream so you could stream text file with SIP and it still be SIP.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    8. Re:Alternatives? by rogueippacket · · Score: 1

      In comparison to Skype, the answer is "not many" - however, everything required to create an alternative already exists, such as the plethora of open codecs from xiph.org, creators of Vorbis, Speex, and Theora, to name a few. Couple it with some kind of call control system, and you're off to the races. I suspect now that everyone is talking about alternatives - even my grandmother is wary of this acquisition - it won't take long for a replacement to appear.

    9. Re:Alternatives? by westlake · · Score: 1

      Ok, what alternatives does Skype have that work on Mac, Linux, FreeBSD and Windows? Preferably Open Source.

      Nowhere are networking effects more important than in a telephone system.

      There are about 700 million Skpe accounts.

      The user can call out to almost land line bound or mobile phone on the planet - and the client is available for damn near every device which has a microphone, a camera, and a connection to the Internet.

    10. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Apple's FaceTime is video on SIP.

    11. Re:Alternatives? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Cool... Thanks for clearing that up. I really don't know much about SIP as I (hopefully) made clear.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    12. Re:Alternatives? by killsome · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Alternatives? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Anything that does SIP.

      Seriously, SIP predates Skype and does voice/video just fine on all platforms, including Android.

      Google "SIP for [platform]" for fun.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    14. Re:Alternatives? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      This very question has been a front page topic at least twice. Look it up.

    15. Re:Alternatives? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I suspect your grandmother is only wary of the acquisition because you have been instilling that wariness into her. No 80 year old I have ever seen has given a shit about some tech company and who buys it, without some tech-centric teen or 20-something telling them they should care.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    16. Re:Alternatives? by rogueippacket · · Score: 1

      Then you suspect wrong, good sir! She is wary of all large technology companies - something about moving from a state operated country, I presume. She saw Skype as being an uninhibited way of communicating with her family across the ocean, but now fears the oppressive ways of a larger organization bearing down on it.

  8. Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it seem like they never oppose any acquisition? It seems like we could save some tax dollars then by just dissolving the FTC.

    1. Re:Is it just me? by Stormthirst · · Score: 0

      But where would all the FTC employees get their new jobs when they approve huge deals like this? Meredith Atwell Baker and her ilk would end up languishing in some Federal organisation for the rest of their careers. Oh wait ...

  9. Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    users have been taking to Twitter to blame Microsoft for Skype's intermittent service

    Yep, it turns out that users are still stupid.

  10. "Takeover" by tooslickvan · · Score: 1

    Why use the word "takeover" when purchase more accurately describes what happened?

    1. Re:"Takeover" by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You must not know much about Microsoft's history. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:"Takeover" by tooslickvan · · Score: 1

      Skype uses proprietary technology. There is nothing to embrace, extend, or extinguish unless you're implying Microsoft bought Skype simply to shut it down.

    3. Re:"Takeover" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prejudice is OK if it's in the right spot.

    4. Re:"Takeover" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they bought Skype to add it's features to Windows Live, Xbox and their WP7 products.
      WP7 cant catch Android & iOS by creating a better product so they're trying to force their way in using money.
      They'll spend a few billion promoting it as the next big thing in communications. They'll end up ripping out the
      guts and replacing it with a new improved NSA/DHS friendly encryption. It wont be extinguished but it will cease
      to exist as a decent usable product.

      Picture the adverts.. Dad in business meeting uses Wp7/Skype to talk to wife on Windows Live who then forwards the call
      through to their 2.4 children where it pauses the xbox game so they can skype to their dad.

  11. To all Facebook Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we can all say thank god Facebook didn't buy them.

  12. Oh, the irony by vonWoland · · Score: 0

    "users shall soon be able to turn to Microsoft when asking questions of Skype's sometimes-spotty service.""

    Because if there is one company that knows all about crappy service, it's Microsoft.

    So long, Skype. You were good while you lasted.

    1. Re:Oh, the irony by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Have you ever used MS customer service? It's easily one of the best. Short wait times, people who speak English, and they've always solved my problems quickly. I know it's hip to hate MS, but your attitude is dated.

    2. Re:Oh, the irony by aztracker1 · · Score: 2

      I was going to mention there is a cost (usually) to calling MS, but at least you can. Try filing a bug report with Google sometime and/or getting a real person.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    3. Re:Oh, the irony by vonWoland · · Score: 1

      I wish I had your problems, then, because mine not only never got solved quickly, but never got solved. As for my attitude being "dated," well, it's dated exactly two weeks ago, which was the last time I was foolish enough to try to get support from Microsoft.

    4. Re:Oh, the irony by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      I once had a Windows XP install on which Windows Update stopped working. I emailed MS support, and received very technical and detailed assistance over a series of back-and-forth emails until the issue was resolved. And I didn't pay MS a dime.

  13. Re:Skype's lifespan is looking pretty long actuall by dammy · · Score: 2

    I would say Skype is going to get some TLC on Linux side. Skype is free but the main revenue is using Skype as commercial service. This commercial service is a perfect vehicle for M$ to gain a revenue stream from Linux (box or droid users) that they normal would never see a dime from. Add Skype in new 7/8 installs, and that is a powerful method of dominating the VOIP market. I can easily see massive growth spike coming to Skype in the next two years.

  14. Quis custodiet? by frisket · · Score: 1

    ...users shall soon be able to turn to Microsoft when asking questions of Skype's sometimes-spotty service.

    Fat lot of use that will be...particularly if you're not using Windows.

    The problem is that the only alternative (SIP) sucks little black toads: abysmal audio quality, ludicrous registration procedures, non-existent global directory services, and far too many competing clients.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favour of open standards and open source and open competition, but with no-one at the helm, and a standard that is trying to be all things to everyone, SIP is going nowhere very fast.

    1. Re:Quis custodiet? by jawtheshark · · Score: 2

      You're probably using SIP at work daily without you even knowing it. All our office phones are Cisco 79nn phones with the SIP firmware. How do I know? I friggin set them up in conjunction with an asterisk sever. Sound quality is excellent.

      The software phones are horrible. I agree, I've tried some and none really convinced me.

      A big company like Google needs to get behind it, integrate it with is services and make a client that will become the defacto most popular software phone. I might see them do that if they really are serious about the Chromebooks. Skype won't run on it, with Microsoft owning it, it won't get implemented.

      Of course, in the end the choice will be between Microsoft or Google, which to many slashdotters is not really a great choice either.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:Quis custodiet? by daemonc · · Score: 1

      (SIP) sucks little black toads: abysmal audio quality, ludicrous registration procedures, non-existent global directory services, and far too many competing clients.

      All of these things are true except for the audio quality*. SIP does not specify any particular audio codec. There are high quality codecs available, it's up to the clients to support them. So, I don't see how having many competing clients is a bad thing.

      * And possibly the toads. I have not had any toad related issues on my PBX yet.

      --
      All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
  15. It could be moot by twoears · · Score: 1

    If and when Google adds webcam (phonecam) to Google Voice as more and more smart phones have front facing cameras, Skype could be rendered irrelevant.

    1. Re:It could be moot by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Google Talk on Android has got video chat recently, and it had it for the web version for quite some time now.

    2. Re:It could be moot by twoears · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and dandy, but I'm referring to GV calls using phone numbers. Perhaps GV and GT will merge in the future?

  16. FTC approval process merely a formality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When is the last time the FTC has denied a merger (to someone other than Google)?

  17. Will Skype soon have problems like Hotmail? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    The CEO of Microsoft apparently has little technical knowledge and no interest in learning. Do you see any evidence that someone like that can run a technology company successfully?

    Will Skype become the Zune of VOIP? Will Skype begin having serious problems like Hotmail?

    Will Windows 8, due next year, be another grab for money, like Windows Vista and Windows ME?

    1. Re:Will Skype soon have problems like Hotmail? by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Will Skype become the Zune of VOIP?

      No, because Skype is popular.

    2. Re:Will Skype soon have problems like Hotmail? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      IE was popular too.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:Will Skype soon have problems like Hotmail? by innerweb · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has killed/destroyed far more popular products than it has made/kept successful.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    4. Re:Will Skype soon have problems like Hotmail? by shortscruffydave · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has killed/destroyed far more popular products than it has made/kept successful.

      There's probably a similar keep:discard ratio for stuff coming out of the R&D labs of any big company.

  18. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more calling Cuba as it's not American, I take?

  19. Umm... by Tasha26 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    so what's a good skype alternative then?

    1. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am wondering myself. I don't want to go through the pain to explain everybody i know how SIP works.

      I think for starters i'll migrate to google voice. Or i'll get myself a mumble server...

    2. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is its not just a program. What makes it so useful is the global PSTN links

    3. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      never tried it, but some people recommended http://www.jitsi.org/

  20. Nothing like the smell of FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep 'em coming, guys.

  21. Likely much better than Ebay by retroworks · · Score: 2

    Some of the commenters seem to be forgetting that Skype has not been an independent free service company since 2005, when it was purchased and left to flounder by ebay.com It's a European company, based in Luxemburg and Estonia, and the EU will probably keep Microsoft from messing it up, though I don't think it's clear that MS would be prone to do that.

    --
    Gently reply
  22. Will the protocols be opened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this fall under the DOJ's antitrust oversight? If so, will Microsoft have to publish the Skype protocols as they have for their other products?

    1. Re:Will the protocols be opened? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      DOJ's anti-trust oversight of Microsoft expired.

    2. Re:Will the protocols be opened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oversight ended a few months ago.

      they can do whatever they want now.

  23. Google Talk by crow · · Score: 1

    You mean like Google Talk? I use that, as it's the only solution that I've found that works on Android, Windows, Mac, and Linux.

  24. MS and no future incompaibilities by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

    and I see a squadron of Gloucester Old Spot Pigs flying in formation over London Heathrow Airport as I type this.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  25. Any one phoned Vegas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would guess the odds are pretty short on MS running this one into the ground in five years.

  26. IAX or ...? by TuringCheck · · Score: 2

    Central servers are a good reason NOT to use IAX. It has this design problem - signaling and data are associated over a single pair of UDP sockets. SIP, Jingle, even H.323 all use RTP for media so the data is decoupled from signaling. This allows P2P transfer of high volume audio and video data. Various techniques exist to pass through a firewall and alternative transports can be used if needed, especially in Jingle which is more flexible. Now, if everybody would agree on a reasonable minimum set of transports and codecs there would be no need of Skype at all...

    1. Re:IAX or ...? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Central servers are a good reason NOT to use IAX. It has this design problem - signaling and data are associated over a single pair of UDP sockets. SIP, Jingle, even H.323 all use RTP for media so the data is decoupled from signaling. This allows P2P transfer of high volume audio and video data. Various techniques exist to pass through a firewall and alternative transports can be used if needed, especially in Jingle which is more flexible.

      Are you an idiot? This is why those protocols were unable to replace Skype! "Various techniques" (giant broken hacks not intentionally supported by a single router in existence) failed for most users, so they had to use central server to relay all data, and that wasn't scalable for free services. With P2P this separation is absolutely useless because difference in latency between alternative paths will cause the receiver to always wait for the slowest link, and VoIP lives and dies by latency.

      Even if you want to spread load or implement redundancy without explicit failover, it changes nothing -- you would have multiple established calls and send the same, or split pieces of the data over all of them.

      Now, if everybody would agree on a reasonable minimum set of transports and codecs there would be no need of Skype at all...

      No longer a problem. If anything, Skype suffered from it more than anything -- some shithead made n900 version with only one video codec that was only supported by latest version for Windows at a time. Everyone on Mac or Linux, or with older Skype for Windows, got no video when talking to a supposedly video-capable phone.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:IAX or ...? by TuringCheck · · Score: 1

      Having a low /. ID is no reason to be rude with everybody.
      You obviously don't work in the VoIP business and you have no idea how hackish the connectivity of Skype is to make it work almost reliable and with minimum costs (for the company).
      The real evil genius is to detect and use other users' better Internet connectivity to act as media relay servers for the majority of home users that think being able to browse the Web means to have Internet connectivity.

    3. Re:IAX or ...? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't work in the VoIP business and you have no idea how hackish the connectivity of Skype is to make it work almost reliable and with minimum costs (for the company).

      I actually do, however I don't consider Skype an acceptable VoIP system for any kind of purpose that involves business. I also know that home users will never accept prices of a typical VoIP provider with enough infrastructure to support reliable voice calls between its users (and a PSTN gateway).

      The real evil genius is to detect and use other users' better Internet connectivity to act as media relay servers for the majority of home users that think being able to browse the Web means to have Internet connectivity.

      1. You only need one intermediate node per established call -- your connection is still at least as slow as the slowest link, and relay only increases latency. Connectivity is pretty clearly defined, too (what matters is mostly upload from node to backbone(s) that it shares with endpoints), so it's not like this system has to solve a traveling salesman problem -- it just has to calculate expected delay when additional stream is added to a given relay node, and decide if this is the best of all available nodes.

      2. Given this, there is absolutely no point trying to route audio separately from commands, so my point stands -- system first chooses relays, then establishes calls through them, all redundancy and failover, if any, happen on top of this.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  27. Linux Skype by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    Somehow I think the first move that Microsoft will make upon assuming control is to kill off Linux Skype. As usual, mergers end up screwing everyone, employees, users, and vendors alike, except upper management.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Linux Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at Microsoft, but I use Linux exclusively at home. I use Skype on Linux pretty frequently. If they kill it, I may try finding out what happens when you email Steve via corporate email and ask him WTF he's thinking.

      Because I know somebody will ask: I only work at MS because they offered me a job, and I still have bills to pay.

    2. Re:Linux Skype by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Excellent. Let me know how that works out if it's necessary.

      I don't think most people here would hate for being a Microsoft employee because I'm sure they'd secretly jump at the chance just like a Google job. (Whether I personally would or not, I don't know. I like my current job, though.)

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  28. RE: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to drop Skype every! Google Voice can be a good replacement.
    Screw Microsoft - FAIL COMPANY.

  29. Skype renamed Windows Bing Voice by David+Gerard · · Score: 0

    Microsoft remains on the bleeding edge of innovation with its completely new-from-the-ground-up Windows Bing Voice Internet phone platform, formerly known as Skype.

    Windows Bing Voice was developed entirely in-house at an acquisition cost of only $8.5 billion. "Our developer teams know the meaning of confidentiality," said Steve Ballmer. "Heck, even they didn't know it was Skype until today. That's how, uh, stealth we are."

    The new Windows Bing Voice client will be included with Windows Phone 7, Office 365, Kin and Zune. "Microsoft will continue to invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms! On a case by case time and availability basis, of course. We'll give our Mac Business Unit developer details for Windows Bing Voice 2011 Ultimate Edition by 2013, for sure."

    Service is expected to remain "at 100%" as the server infrastructure is moved from Linux to Windows, though Microsoft has not specified what that will be 100% of. The peer-to-peer functionality of Skype will also be harnessed to distribute Windows updates and Windows Genuine Advantage serial number blacklists.

    Google said that the Google Voice servers were "holding up well" under the influx of new users.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  30. Washington state use tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a little confused on whether Skype services are subject to use tax in Washington state, namely because of this 2007 pdf stating, "Many VoIP providers may lack taxable nexus with the state. And unlike most items subject to retail sales tax, there is no comparable use tax due on telecommunications services."

    So, those of us in Washington state, were we suppose to pay use tax before? (I'm guessing no.)

    And given the acquisition by Microsoft, now there's going to be retail sales tax, correct? (I'm guessing yes, meaning maybe it's time to buy some years before taxes go up.)

  31. Re: by luther349 · · Score: 1

    i never could get any of the desktop apps for google voice to work. so your forced to leave gmail open to knoe if someone calls you, unless of course your roughting to another phone.

  32. Heh. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    This headline reminds me of the Skype outages a couple of months ago and how people were blaming them on Microsoft...

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  33. Popular now. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    FoxPro was popular before Microsoft bought it. Now its dead.

    1. Re:Popular now. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It could be argued that Microsoft Kept it alive longer then it would have lasted...
      I am thinking of systems like Powerbuilder, and Borland Development languages.

      FoxPro was one of those "Database Driven" Languages (Think of a heavy duty MS Access) where it interacted with its own database, (connecting to an external server, other database for a lot of data interaction make coding a lot more difficult, and the code was far more inconsistent) and problems of record locking and data corruption when you scaled beyond 5 people using an app on the same data at the same time.

      Although I greatly enjoyed the syntax of the FoxPro Language its underlying architectural design was doomed to failure (although it was a good design at the time, but IT needs have switched)

      Microsoft probably kept a few more years into the product where it would have died much earlier. As it would be allowed to survive "The Y2K swap to all Microsoft Products" that a lot of business did in the late 90's, ditching a lot of their old DOS and Unix legacy systems, towards nicer looking Windows Apps.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  34. That's pretty much it for Windows Phone 7 then... by NetCow · · Score: 1

    ... since carriers love Skype so very much due to its ability to shift their revenue from the extremely profitable voice calls to the much less profitable data transmission channels, and since nobody will believe Microsoft should they claim not to have any plans to integrate Skype's technology in WP7. This is irrespective of whether WP7 has technical merit or not. Carriers make or break a mobile OS - they can simply refuse to subsidize phones running an unwanted OS thus forcing it out of the market.

  35. Message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one day i will get a we have discontinued skype for linux but you can install the windows version with wine message

  36. Skype is dead, long live Skype... by KreAture · · Score: 1

    I guess I will have to look for an alternative. It's sad, but MS taking over skype is unacceptable. I never accepted LiveID and all that crap as it isn't how I want to use computers. They are supposed to be a tool for specific tasks you want to do, not your entire life and the person you are. Why does everyone seem to want to tie everything together and identify you uniquely for even the simplest search-task, and why should there be links between a PM account and a friggin blog? I mean, 1 password is easier to remember, but also easier to hack! There are a lot of users out there who will be devastated if their accounts were hacked. Politically, personally and financially as well as work-wise. Their life can simply be stolen. Soon some moron will find it wise to tie this in with your bank account too, then you will be really screwed. I need an alternative. Something unrelated to any government, social website and buisiness morons.

  37. Re:SIP by Technician · · Score: 1

    SIP is up and working for me. I have a Softphone running on Ubuntu on a netbook for travel anyplace and a hardware ATA with 2 lines at home. One is SIP only with no provider for PTSN. This is used for free SIP to SIP calls worldwide much like Skype to Skype. The other line is provisioned for inbound and outbound calls. Unlimited calls to more than 30 countries is part of the package for under $25/month. This includes call to England, UK, USA, Guam, Canada, China, Australia, Switzerland, Thailand, and elsewhere to landlines. This beats any minutes plan if you do high volume of calls overseas. Countries not on the list are still free SIP to SIP.

    Google voice works while you are at your computer and logged into Google. SIP with an ATA (analog telephone adaptor) can use your answering machine and desk phone.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  38. Re:SIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What provider are you using for the under $25/mo?

  39. Microsoft: the reverse philosopher's stone? by cheros · · Score: 1

    The interesting trend reversal for Microsoft becomes more and more obvious with every activity. It used to be that share prices shot up when Microsoft indicated an interest in a company, now it is exactly the reverse.

    Nokia shares seemed to have suffered after the decision to load their new phones with Microsoft software, a deal generally seen as one between two losers. There was really no upshot for Nokia there, and investors didn't seem to think so either (remarkable).

    The moment Microsoft announced its intention to buy Skype I noticed a VERY sharp increase in people seeking an alternative (of which there is presently none, leaving a hole in the market that will remain until software patents make more sense). Again, product confidence nose dives once Microsoft gets involved.

    Microsoft: turning gold into lead?

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  40. superb, now we pay for sure by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Now that the deal has been approved, M$ will be charging for using skype, just watch as the free part of skype gets taken out.

  41. Re:SIP by Technician · · Score: 1

    For SIP to SIP, that is always free.
    I'm using Ekiga for that.
    Use a soft phone to dial sip users as a user name is used instead of a phone number that can be dialed on a plain telephone. An ATA can be used to receive calls from SIP to SIP or from a provisioner. You can get a free SIP account from Ekiga https://www.ekiga.net/

    For free inbound with a local Washington State USA number, IPKall is completely free. You can use this number worldwide. For example if you live in Australia, you can have a US number for people to call you.
    http://www.ipkall.com/

    For outbound calls there are a variety of low rate and unlimited plans. I'm using Lingo.
    https://www.lingo.com/

    All of the above can be used with an ATA adaptor that is not locked to a carrier such as Vontage.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  42. FoxPro had 1.5 million users. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Perhaps a year before Microsoft killed FoxPro, a Microsoft tech support person told me FoxPro had 1.5 million users.