I don't see why people would quit using Skype now. The fact that it has been bought by Microsoft doesn't change that Skype is evil. It already was. It already was a closed source software using a proprietary protocol and doing stuff you don't know with your bandwidth.
Don't get me wrong, it's great if people switch from Skype to something free (as in freedom), but not if it's because it has been bought by Microsoft, this makes no sense.
Really? "Evil" just because it's closed-source? Regardless, I'd imagine most Linux Skype users have at least a few Windows users on their contact lists -- and good luck getting them to switch operating systems.
The other point was using bandwidth. If you run Skype on a well-connected computer, you can't decide whether you want to become a big Skype relay node for your part of the world; Skype decides that for you.
The protocol and client are both obfuscated at cost to performance and security. Exploits have been found repeatedly for everything from remote code execution to using skype clients like a botnet.
Non-NAT'd nodes are forced to carry traffic for NATed nodes.
Skype have the ability to intercept your calls, but you guessed that anyway.
Also, if everyone in the world used one phone company, or bank, and that company refused to allow other new companies to inter-operate, they would face antitrust. Skype, and arguably facebook, control their markets. They should be forced to allow inter-op.
> Skype, and arguably facebook, control their markets.
Facebook users have invested a lot of time forming their social connections, posting photos, tagging photos, etc. On the other hand, most Skype users just have a buddy list and people that they talk to. There is no 'anchor' keeping them from jumping ship to another client/protocol (or even running that client/protocol in parallel with Skype). Skype is not the anti-trust that you are looking for.
The word "evil" is too strong, I agree. But even if people continue to use Windows, at least they could use a software with an open protocol for their communications, not something with which you don't know what some company do with your data.
Disclaimer: I'm guilty myself since I use facebook for instance.
English is not my natural language, I didn't knew that "guilt" is such a strong word. What I meant is that I say and think that it's much better to use open protocol and free software, in particular for (possibly private) communications, but that I know that it's not easy to do so when virtually everyone is using the same "wrong" (or maybe it's another too-strong word) thing. This is why I said that I'm using facebook, to nuance my comment.
Except that they refuted that very statement in their press release
Skype will support Microsoft devices like Xbox and Kinect, Windows Phone and a wide array of Windows devices, and Microsoft will connect Skype users with Lync, Outlook, Xbox Live and other communities. Microsoft will continue to invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms.
It says "non-Microsoft platforms". It doesn't say "all currently supported non-Microsoft platforms". So, this may just mean "we're not going to ditch the Mac".
I don't see a rebuttal of the claim that they will no longer update the linux client (which beta is about 4 years old IIRC), or probably just drop it.
If one was really naive I guess one might imagine that "invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms" might cover linux rather than a limited set of possible platforms. I have no worries about the java based client on my phone for example.
When Skype is installed, it changes each phone number in your browser to a Skype button. For years webdesigners have been going crazy trying to convince either their clients to uninstall Skype or Skype to provide a durable fix for not wanting your phone-numbers highlighted.
You can safely call the Skype extension evil malware, if your giant call-to-action phonenumber is forced to be written like this: 012-34[span style="display:none"]_[/span]5678 or it becomes hijacked by a video chat program.
This thread starts at 2007 and goes downhill from there: http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showtopic=78380 (Look at the meta tag solution, that works for a while, but doesn't work in XHTML strict. Microsoft and Skype definitely deserve each other)
Just humorous accident. I got request to update Skype this morning and after update all I get is this: http://i.imgur.com/qYcwd.png (after that skype crashes).
I see quite a lot of good reasons for it - but the site fails to list any decent alternatives. I don't think there are any at this point.
To give you an impression of things that might speak against using Skype (not that I want to imply that these should matter to you. I merely want to speak for the 'I'd like to leave (but cannot)' side):
1) It's proprietary. We cannot validate the protocol without reverse engineering (and even then they'd be free to break/change it). The security of Skype calls, one of the loudest arguments for using it, is dubious and it seems to be a fact by now that governments are allowed to/capable of recoding your calls.
2) Resource heavy: If you ever compared a Skype conference (audio only) with any other system, the resource usage is ridiculous. Mostly CPU, but also network wise.
3) In your face advertisements: The (unacceptable) UI constantly pops up with 'subscribe here'/'buy credits there'/'did you know all the other ways you can hand over your money'. You can turn off most of these, but an update usually leads to the very same thing.
4) Maybe related to the P2P architecture: The behavior is unpredictable at times. I often see people online, they don't see me. Or vice versa. I can talk to someone on Skype, but messages (say, a link) fail to be delivered. Sometimes messages queue up for hours and completely lose their meaning when they arrive at 1am, asking about having lunch.
What I have never understood about any of these arguments is the demonization of corporations for the purposes of argument.
IF, and I stress if, there is a better option, for users then I suggest use it. But arguments such as it was bought by Microsoft therefore it must be bad do not make sense.
To be more specific, Skype had all the valid issues it had (such as proprietary format, advertising etc.) before it was acquired by Microsoft. The only new factor is its acquisition.
The fact that certain companies, Microsoft, IBM etc. have an 'evil', 'corporate' air about them, whereas companies (and this is a generalization for the sake of example) such as Google and Apple are the good guys don't make sense.
I would like to see free software promoted for its merits, and to see bogus arguments based around who makes the product to disappear from the IT world.
No company is less evil than any other, and whether products should be used or not should not depend on who owns them, but how the products operate.
"Evilness" is not judged only by potential, but also by reputation based on previous history. Clearly companies are in the business of making money, so at some point they may break rules in order to make money, but so do individuals when placed in positions of power.
And no baby is more evil than any other baby, but grownups are very different in that regard, that's why people rely so much on reputation when discussing a person's ethics and trustworthiness, since it's the only metric that counts.
Clearly you can compare the evilness of any 2 companies by looking at their past history, just as we do with individual human beings.
whether products should be used or not
should not depend on who owns them
This argument only holds if after the purchase you OWN said product. But this is not the case with proprietary software, and even less so with web-based services. In such instances you're actually leasing the product and you're depending on the company's good will for continued maintenance and improvement of said product. And because switching products goes from easy to next to impossible, with lock-in effects and all that, the relationship that a company establishes with you after becoming a customer is very important, as you depend on that relationship.
And when building relationships in general, you also have to take into account how that company or person is treating other customers.
Not that open-source products are any better (I'm referring to those who's main sponsor retains copyrights for all contributions), as there have been instances where communities haven't read the "fine print", with the main sponsors later turning around and screwing with said communities. See Sun/Oracle and their schizophrenic involvement in projects such as Mysql and Java.
This is the main reason why companies are acting the way they do, constantly screwing their customers, because customers take it as a fact of life that such companies can screw with them.
Imagine if your neighbor took a piss in your roses every Friday, and you found out about it. Would you still lent him your lawn mower next time he asks? Why would you allow companies to constantly piss on your lawn, instead of voting with your wallet and taking your business to some other company that cares more about you?
I mean, capitalism itself only works efficiently if you are voting with your wallet.
Microsoft (and most tech companies) are not very evil in comparison so I think it's very possible to make a quick heuristic determination about how evil two companies are.
Now, take away Xe and compare Microsoft, Google, IBM, and Apple for example. Certainly one is most evil and one is the least evil.
The problem I think you're pointing out is that they are probably very close to each other on the good-evil spectrum. Our moral irises have just opened all the way because we sit in comfortable padded chairs and wiggle our fingers over a plastic box all day to make a nice living.
> To be more specific, Skype had all the valid issues it had (such as proprietary format, advertising etc.) before it was acquired by Microsoft.
Since you responded to my comment, let me reply to this with 'Exactly. I didn't (intended to) imply anything else'. We're on the same page.
Sure, some people might look into alternatives because of other reasons (aquisition). My reply listed just issues I have with the product itself though (and for a long time already..).
Unfortunately the desktop client needs some work, and AFAIK it supports only windows.
And another thing I don't like about Google Talk is that last time I tried, it had no support for multi-user video-conferencing. Neither do the free Skype accounts, but I think on Skype you can have a video-conference with up to 4 users.
So if Google is going to put some resources into GTalk, then it will kick-ass (you'll just tell your friends / colleagues to download the client and to use their GMail account for login), or just use the GMail web interface (which currently is more capable than the stable desktop client :)).
Google Talk runs in the browser. I tried it on Windows and Mac without problems. Actually, we found it to be more reliable than Skype at low bandwidths.
I know absolutely nobody who uses Google Talk. Posting on Facebook "Does anyone here really use Google Talk?" there was a roaring silence in response.
I can't for the life of me see why you would go from a minor evil service like Skype/MSN/whatever with a variety of clients to choose from to a monsterous big-brother service like Google Talk.
Aren't we giving Google enough power and dominance as it is?
Edit: To comment on the actual article, it seems to be a mix of supposedly fashionate "Microsoft sucks" attitude, standard "Microsoft is evil" paranoia and some legitimate concerns about future support for non-Microsoft platforms.
IMO the only one worthy of discussion would be the last one.
1) Each gmail user is also a GTalk user. It's very convenient to be able to reach people not using any other IMs through the GTalk's web interface.
2) In corporate environment it's sometimes the only option, due to inability to install 3rd party software.
3) There's a huge advantage of GTalk over Skype - Skype is a P2P protocol. If you send a message to an offline contact and disconnect, he will never receive it unless at some point you are both online. It makes sense for VOIP obviously, but for IM that's just ridiculous.
For the same reason there's no server-side history - no way to reach lot of important information after you reinstall the system, break computer etc.
I use "google talk" by using my own Jabber server. Google talk intergrates with XMPP very nicely. Even video chat works. Google Talks interoperability makes it the best choice for the average consumer.
But more seriously, me and most of my contacts have switched to Google Talk as the Windows Live client is very bloated these days and GTalk generally connects faster and is always there as part of Gmail when you log in on any platform on any computer (eg friend's computer, library etc).
Interesting perspective. I consider it UI noise/bloat and it has always annoyed me ever since it was pushed into the gmail UI. When I'm in my mail-client I want to do email and that's it, etc etc.
I thought starting to aggressively add non-core features was one of the key things which made people hate Yahoo and Hotmail? So how is Google doing with gmail these days:
- Talk. I'm Google Bob. Do you want to chat with this contact?
- Buzz. Yeah how about that?
- Whoah! Wait NO we will not let you download this calendar invitation for
Outlook. Please sign up for Google Calendar or forget about ever responding!
Teehee
- OH HEY PLEASE USE CHROME
- Dude! Dude! I'm Google Voice and you should seriously use me to call!!
- Oh wait, you're from outside the US? Sorry you cant!!
I'll just leave the voice UI all here for you though. lol.
IMO it's getting pretty nasty.
Not saying you are wrong, but I never really though about it that way. I value purity and Gmail is getting messy. If Google Talk had been an actual stand-alone application and not ... crummed in stuff I didn't ask for, now then maybe I would use it. Then it wouldn't be invasive UI noise in my mail app.
All of my friends and coworkers use Google Talk. I don't even have MSN! (and I barely use Skype, since my desktop computer doesn't have webcam nor microphone). In the end, I use the videochat feature on GMail, because it actually works pretty well.
Good luck doing a job or phd interview on google talk. My understanding is that skype has patents on a myriad of things related to live audio/video. Plus it works really really well and does screen sharing too (which means you can do presentations online). It's not just the network effect here. It's actually a better-than-the-rest product (and i sure hope MS won't make it a mess). Plus, its not less free than gtalk .
Hm, 3 Options, of which one only supports Linux (Empathy) and one only supports Windows & Linux (Ekiga). Only Linphone seems to have platform support that comes close to Skype. So, cut it down to one.
Personally, I think Linphone looks kind of dated and their site is full of google adwords. I would hesitate to send a link out to anyone.
Linphone is "just" a SIP client. Your contacts can use it if they want and you can use another SIP client. Just like Google Talk use XMPP and people can use any client to connect to their GTalk account and then talk with anyone using Jabber/XMPP (even not Google Talk).
That's why open protocols are good. Because they're open.
I am fully aware of that. Still, this post markets them as "skype alternatives". I think the biggest problem of selling those 'open protocols' to people is that there is no consistent base client as in 'lets all switch to skype (client, protocol, server, whatever)'. I work in a company where we use all major OSes. If I came up with "hey lets switch to client A for Linux users, client B for windows users and client X for OS X", people would stone me. They want one thing: one software to rule it all.
Well, if there was a free alternative that would provide all that, at least we would be bound to RMS. (Royal Majesty Sauron?)
I would much prefer that to the secretive doings of Microskype, but you have to sell your alternatives and not underestimate network effects, especially in the network market.
"Don't use Skype! Please!" doesn't really mean much when everybody I'd (or most people) would ever want to talk to thinks that Ekiga is a funny name for a rash.
It's great that there's replacements. But let's be serious, I'm not going to be able to convince my friends/family who by and large is not going to care about any changes that MS brings to Skype.
Alternative VOIP programs are not in anyway new, the same issue of getting people to actually use these programs is still prevalent.
Don't underestimate the blanket coverage that Skype achieved.
I do interviews with people all over the world who have Skype already installed on their computers.
If I shifted to a different program -- even if it was better -- I'd have to spend time helping instal the new app before we could start our conversation.
Yep, sounds like it. Skype doesn't need any more reasons to go away, it's horrible and unmaintained on most platforms (it crashes every 5-10 lines of chatting on all ny Linux computers, for instance), there's just no better competitor so far.
In most cases there are alternatives to every social platform, and frequently better ones than the popular 'standard'... but if there is no one there you want to talk to, it's not too useful.
I use Skype to simplify international calling. I have a phone number in Poland (bought through Skype). People in Poland dial that number, and Skype routes it to a number of my choosing. I have numbers in countries that my family lives in. For them it is a local call, and it always gets directly to me.
Neither of the three shown alternatives provide this feature.
Although not cross-platform, FaceTime has one killer feature: it passes the mom test. Skype has passed it too, but not with as many flying colours as FaceTime.
Mom push button, mom video chatting with grand kids. No intervention from grand kids required.
It may come as a shock to some people, but the overwhelming majority of people--even in the tech would--literally could not care less if their VOIP client is FSF-approved and based on open standards. "Does it work?" is a much more powerful consideration.
Don't get me wrong, it's great if people switch from Skype to something free (as in freedom), but not if it's because it has been bought by Microsoft, this makes no sense.