Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Approves Microsoft's Takeover of Skype

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the it's-all-yours dept.

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."

37 of 153 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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. =)

    6. 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.

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

    *facepalm*

    Premature. English isn't that hard, kids.

  3. 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 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)
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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?

  4. 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 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.

    2. 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."
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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!
  5. 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 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)
    3. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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)
  8. 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)?

  9. 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.

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

    so what's a good skype alternative then?

  11. 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
  12. 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?

  13. 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.

  14. 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...

  15. 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
  16. Popular now. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

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