View Full Version : 100 million reasons to use Skype
Thoughtfix (http://tabletblog.com/2007/07/skype-review-on-nokia-n800.html) tells us there are 100 million registered Skype users.
So when people wonder what the advantage of having Skype is, it's to take advantage of the network effect (http://www.idealliance.org/papers/extreme/proceedings/html/2002/CMSMcQ02/EML2002CMSMcQ02.html).
Walkaround internet calls, to lots of people, anywhere, at no cost and anybody at all for a low cost.Read the full article. (http://www.internettablettalk.com/2007/07/07/100-million-reasons-to-use-skype/)
grizwald
2007-07-08, 01:44
One reason not to use Skype:
I dont know any of thoes 100 milion people.
(Plus my wife's eployer payes for my cell phone) :)
One of my colleagues loves Skype, and was so excited for it to arrive on the N800. For him, and people like him, Skype was a selling point.
mwiktowy
2007-07-08, 02:24
Read the full article. (http://www.internettablettalk.com/2007/07/07/100-million-reasons-to-use-skype/)
The Lemming rationale ... always a good standby when there is nothing else noteworthy about a product.
The Lemming rationale ... always a good standby when there is nothing else noteworthy about a product.
Oh come on... nothing else??? The N800 is full of noteworthy aspects for many users. And simply being a Skype user, or favoring the N800 for now having Skype, does not ipso facto make a user a "lemming". That's a gross exaggeration.
The Lemming rationale ... Hm-m. I don't think we're on the same page here.
The transcript of that talk includes this:
In almost any comparison you can think of, if there are two competing technologies, one of which has visible benefits from network effects, and the other of which doesn't, the one with the visible benefits from network effects is the one that's going to win. This is not inherently evil; it's also not inherently good. It does have unambiguous benefits. The network effect provides the payoff which helps induce us as a society to make choices when we need to.
If Skype has 20 times as many users as Google Talk or Gizmo, it's way more than 20 times as useful to, um, use it. I can't think of any economic analysis that indicates rationale choice of benefits is lemming-like.
Perhaps you're mistaking me for one of those guys who camped out for 24 hours in order to buy an iPhone and two-year AT&T contract. :rolleyes:
mwiktowy
2007-07-08, 03:19
Oh come on... nothing else??? The N800 is full of noteworthy aspects for many users. And simply being a Skype user, or favoring the N800 for now having Skype, does not ipso facto make a user a "lemming". That's a gross exaggeration.
I'm not arguing the conclusion nor did I say anything about the N800 not being noteworthy. Just arguing against that rationale being used to come to that conclusion that Skype is better than anything else. The "100 million reasons" argument is a logical fallacy. Just because 100 million people do something does not automatically make it a good thing to do. It is right up there with peer-pressure and mob mentality. Someone favouring something for the sole reason that everyone else is doing it is most certainly lemming mentality.
When you look at the feature-set of Skype, there is nothing noteworthy that sets it above other VoIP offerings. I have used / currently use many different VoIP systems including XMPP based using open codec (Gtalk), SIP-based using open codec (Gizmo, Ekiga, Wengophone), SIP-based using open codecs but walled garden (Vonage), proprietary protocol/codec mesh system (Skype) and mixed proprietary protocol/open codecs (Teamspeak). I can honestly say there is nothing compelling about Skype when compared to these others. It is pretty much middle of the road.
There are a number of things that make it less favourable in some respects including its "Walled Garden" community and its proprietary protocol/codec usage. People who ignore these things do not know the history of the traditional phone system and the mess it was at the beginning. Interoperability and choice of provider are good things.
mwiktowy
2007-07-08, 03:28
Hm-m. I don't think we're on the same page here.
The transcript of that talk includes this:
The value of a network is indeed based on the number of interconnections. That is Metcalfe's Law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law ). This is contrary to Skype's business model of not allowing anyone but their customers to have access to their users. The problem is illustrated by the question: If you become unhappy with Skype's service, what other Skype provider will you turn to that allows you to stay connected to your network of peers?
For me, Skype is a pervasive reason to upgrade to the N800 from my 770. I have plenty of business contacts and I've paid for the full year outgoing for 14.95 - before the February '07 deadline in the US when it went up to 29.95 - and I rarely remember to use it because I'm starting to hate to lug around my laptop.
Skype on my internet tablet is reason enough. Sadly, it means that I'm going to have to pay through the nose for it - Nokia will get my money twice it seems.
I'm not arguing the conclusion nor did I say anything about the N800 not being noteworthy.
Actually, it appears that you did. I just responded to your own words about a product that had little that was noteworthy.
Just arguing against that rationale being used to come to that conclusion that Skype is better than anything else. The "100 million reasons" argument is a logical fallacy. Just because 100 million people do something does not automatically make it a good thing to do.
You're taking that way, way too literally. It was obviously meant as a figure of speech, not to be deconstructed into a logical fallacy. It's hyperbole, but harmless.
As for the invocation of Metcalfe's Law, consider that Skype has ADDED to the connection possibilities. Their network restrictions take nothing away from that. So in addition to the number of Gizmo and Googletalk users, we just added another 100 million more potential N800 customers (taking the expression literally for sake of this point).
And if you're one day out of their network, so what? Your contacts don't suddenly die. You utilize a competing means of reaching them.
I'm not sure why you're getting that worked up anyway... :confused:
One good thing about lemmings -- they don't have to worry about dying alone :)
Most social creatures don't die alone.
"100 million reasons to use Skype"
"XXX million reasons to like war"
War is good because XXX million people voted president butch and he likes war (i have to guess).
Another possibility would be that sometimes people get dragged into something they later regret.
benny1967
2007-07-08, 08:54
Hm-m. I don't think we're on the same page here.
The transcript of that talk includes this:
In almost any comparison you can think of, if there are two competing technologies, one of which has visible benefits from network effects, and the other of which doesn't, the one with the visible benefits from network effects is the one that's going to win. This is not inherently evil; it's also not inherently good. It does have unambiguous benefits. The network effect provides the payoff which helps induce us as a society to make choices when we need to.
If Skype has 20 times as many users as Google Talk or Gizmo, it's way more than 20 times as useful to, um, use it. I can't think of any economic analysis that indicates rationale choice of benefits is lemming-like.
Perhaps you're mistaking me for one of those guys who camped out for 24 hours in order to buy an iPhone and two-year AT&T contract. :rolleyes:
RogerS, IMHO you're oversimplifying things here. You assume that there is one single criterion when you make a choice between technologies like SIP, Jabber/Jingle or Skype (with Skype being more of a business model than a technology). This is wrong. From a purely economic point of view, what could you try to check before registering?
Cost (monthly? per call? how much?)
Features (Call in? Landlines? Mobiles?)
Available in your country? (Like: Do I get a *local* number for call-in?)
Customer service?
"Network effect" (what you say is important: how many existing contacts do I reach?)
Reliability?
Security?
Compatibility with existing infrastructure?
Choice? (Can you keep the technology but switch the provider?)
These are only a few that come to my mind, there are probably more. The network effect is only one of them.
When I personally think of some soon-to-be Skype-users as lemmings its because I cant help the feeling they never even think of any of those economic, rational points. There's one single criterion for them: If all the others have it, it must be good. Period. They don't know the alternatives nor do they care to learn. They don't really know if any of their friends uses Skype or anything else - they tend to check this afterwards. All they have to base their decisions on is that Skype happens to be in the media so often and everyone talks about it.
(Of course, some make they choice considering most of the points given above and maybe even more; if they choose Skype then, there's no reason calling them lemmings :D )
Another thing that comes into play here and that cannot be measured on an economic scale is the moral aspect. People want to be good. They separate waste, they donate, they help young mothers with strollers climb the stairs... yes, they do. Some of us realize that proprietary technologies like Skype (Flash, *.doc-Files, ...) are as bad as pollution and simply refuse to support them for this one reason, even if it might contradict their own economic interests. There are people who refuse to share MP3 files and insist on OGG vorbis instead. And there are those who refuse to register with Skype and insist the other person registers with a SIP or jabber/Jingle based account.
Putting all this together, I think the "network effect" is simply overestimated. For the lemmings, its not the network that counts but Skypes PR in the media. And for all the ohers, there's so many things to consider that the network effect is just one of many.
Careful with the rank assumptions about other users, Benny. ;)
And even if your speculation is correct, so what? So there are people who buy because a friend does... and? This is nothing new. Do they represent the majority? Who knows? Who cares!
What I find interesting in your rebuttal benny is that you want to discredit Roger's definition of the (technical) network effect, using as your rationale a social network effect. Hey, at the end of the day, a network is a network is a network. ;)
Again, the rebuttals to Roger's argument are, in my estimation, going far afield of where he intended. It's a VOIP client, folks. It enjoys a lot of users. The N800 can now jack into that group. And the problem is... what?
benny1967
2007-07-08, 17:39
Texrat, I try not to make assumptions. I write down what I experience around me with people I know. (Sure, there's always things you mostly interpret, like motives...)
Speaking about interpretation: When I read the article I understood the "network effect" was primarily a social effect, having technical consequences. What I found most interesting was the following part:
Now, if network effects are the best predictor, then we must infer that the people who actually are responsible for making a good decision are the early adopters. In IT, that means you. You have a responsibility to judge what matters not by network effects but by technical merit. This is a special case of the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant, [...] which your mother may have expressed more colloquially as, “What would the world be like if everyone did that?”
This last sentence, for me, is the basic issue.
I still don't see any problem.
benny1967
2007-07-08, 17:55
@Tex:
Lucky you :D
One day we'll meet IRL and I'll explain to you in detail all thats bad and evil in this world. Sounds good to you? ;)
No thanks. I'm struggling to become Mary Poppins and don't need the disteractions. :p
mwiktowy
2007-07-08, 23:30
Actually, it appears that you did. I just responded to your own words about a product that had little that was noteworthy.
I guess I wasn't clear. When I was refering to "product" I was refering to Skype since that was the subject of the "100 million users" not the N800. I would think that Nokia would be very happy to have 100 million N800 users :]
You're taking that way, way too literally. It was obviously meant as a figure of speech, not to be deconstructed into a logical fallacy. It's hyperbole, but harmless.
I don't dispute the number 100 million ... there are undoubtedly that many registered usernames on their books. But for the sake of a review, it is marketese ... sounds great but meaningless.
As for the invocation of Metcalfe's Law, consider that Skype has ADDED to the connection possibilities. Their network restrictions take nothing away from that. So in addition to the number of Gizmo and Googletalk users, we just added another 100 million more potential N800 customers (taking the expression literally for sake of this point).
I missed the press release where Skype is working to actively bridge the gap between its network and other networks rather than its previous history of isolating its network. I know that Gizmo and Googletalk are actively bridging their networks. Not very quickly but at least they have stated the intention to do so.
And if you're one day out of their network, so what? Your contacts don't suddenly die. You utilize a competing means of reaching them.
Which competing client can connect to a user on the Skype network?
I know that everyone can switch to something else but have you ever tried to get someone to switch to something new and unknown (and even possibly better) after they have gotten used to something? It is not easy. There is a great deal of inertia to overcome. It is best to have them not lock themselves into a service where they have no service provider alternatives later.
I'm not sure why you're getting that worked up anyway... :confused:
I am not worked up ... it is difficult to read body language or tone in a written message. In fact, I am just trying to inject a bit of unemotional logic into the Skype hype to try to convince people to practice a bit of critical reasoning before jumping into that walled garden when there are equal or better alternatives for the N800 that have existed for a while now that don't involve hedges.
Just as I misunderstood you, you seem to have misunderstood me. With responses 3 and 4, you're extrapolating ideas that weren't in my comments. I'm not up to making this a huge tete-a-tete (:D) but I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. Suffice to say I did not mean to imply anything that led to those responses.
As for "worked up", that wasn't meant as an accusation or anything derogatory... I'm saying it appears to me you put more work into deconstructing and analyzing the article than the points made merited. ;)
i'm 4 of those 100million "users". i've used skype about 3 times since free calling to US/Canadian numbers was ended.
An open-source SIP client would allow the tablet to be used as a voip phone connected to asterisk or to a voip service. It would be incredibly useful.
Did Tapioca SIP and minisip both give up? Why do these projects keep stalling? bad luck, high level of difficulty, or disincentives?
grizwald
2007-07-09, 04:26
You guys are funny...
I personally have no use for skype... But more poower to thoes who do!
Skype is propriertary software. Propriertary software is antisocial. One telephone that only calls to others same brand phones is antisocial. Nokia that only calls to Nokia? Motorola that only calls to Motorola? This post is wrong because have the idea that Skype is social.
«Eat **** 8000000000000000 Fly's can't be wrong»
benny1967
2007-07-09, 09:34
As for the invocation of Metcalfe's Law, consider that Skype has ADDED to the connection possibilities. Their network restrictions take nothing away from that. So in addition to the number of Gizmo and Googletalk users, we just added another 100 million more potential N800 customers (taking the expression literally for sake of this point).
Oh, Mary Poppins, I'm so sorry I missed this one before. I'm afraid I have to tell you you're all wrong now ;) (Try to find a sweet song aftwerwards to make us all sing and dance and forget reality :D )
It's too easy to say Skype "doesnt take away anything, it only adds a new option". This would be like saying giant shopping malls outside the cities didn't take away anything, they just added new possibilities. The truth is: They caused small downtown-shops to close down and took away the possibility to shop locally, the possibility to choose. (Same goes for Microsoft and its de facto monopoly on the desktop.)
Skype isn't just another option. Skype on the N800, for example, makes it less attractive for people to invest in open VoIP clients for the device, because in some way, VoIP is there for most people. So it does take away the option to choose - again.
It's a very libertarian thing to think of new players in the market as "new options" only. In fact many of them in the long run mean less options than before. There is such a thing as a moral aspect to it. Yes, there is.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! :D
Benny, I'd buy your argument if and only if any of those 100 millions Skype users were taken from other alternatives. In the case we're talking about, they were not. They already exist. My point was that they represent potential new N800 users. Will that potential be fully realized? I'm not that naive. :D But, again, I was specifically addressing potential alone. Ironically, that also goes for your comment about Skype taking away the option to use: it CAN, but won't necessarily do it.
Nokia still intends to provide open SIP. That alone undermines Skype's potential to be the Wal-Mart of N800 voip. Potentially.
;)
I prefer free, open software. But the fact is that if you ask 'internet phone' to random computer users everywhere then chance is that 'Skype' is their reply - or else they're not familiar with making calls over the internet at all. So, getting Skype on the N800 was good for that reason - large contacts list, and contacts in other companies on the other side of the world are also familiar with it. Besides, Skype _does_ have some other features that most alternatives don't: 1) More countries are included for landcalls. 2) Cheap calls (this is also the case for some of the alternatives, but 1) is more often than not enough that it doesn't help). And 3) Penetrates well in firewall environments.
I really would like to have an open source version instead of course. Skype had the most stupid 'missing close when disconnect' bug for half a year (in the linux version), which would have been easy to fix if it was open (instead we had to resort to pre-loading a patched C runtime lib. with hacked functionality). And now that it's been fixed, it's only in a new version with terrible user interface (the old one was good. This is the layout in the N800 version, btw.)
benny1967
2007-07-09, 18:56
Benny, I'd buy your argument if and only if any of those 100 millions Skype users were taken from other alternatives. In the case we're talking about, they were not. They already exist. My point was that they represent potential new N800 users. Will that potential be fully realized? I'm not that naive. :D But, again, I was specifically addressing potential alone. Ironically, that also goes for your comment about Skype taking away the option to use: it CAN, but won't necessarily do it.
Guess we're missing each others point here ... ;) (still it's great, I never thought I'd one day discuss VoIP with Mary Poppins :D )
From my point of view it doesn't matter where those 100 millions came from. The fact that there are 100 millions means that there's an emerging monopoly which I should do my best to fight. So there's 100 million reasons not to use Skype.
I really can't see why it should matter if the users were taken from other alternatives. See what happened with MS Windows? Most Windows users never had a different OS before, still each of them helps creating a hostile environment for the users of other platforms. What they call "choice" then is "well, you can still switch to Windows if you dont like the incompatibilities". Well...
I'm not saying Skype shouldn't be on the N800. I'm not saying people shouldn't use it. All I say is theres good reason not to use it (in fact, 100 million reasons) and one might want to think about it before installing it. What if everybody used it? Would you like that? I certainly wouldn't. I prefer competition. And competition can only live through open standards.
Nokia still intends to provide open SIP.
First time I heard this was befor I bought the 770 in March 2006. They said it would be provided for the 770. I'm not sure if anybody believes it anymore...
benny1967
2007-07-09, 19:09
Ok you win. :p
Boring... :p
thoughtfix
2007-07-09, 20:47
Word from Skype marketing: The total number of registered users is now over 196 million. At any given moment, you can see how many users are online, which has been around the nine million mark (http://share.skype.com/sites/en/2007/01/nine_million_online.html).
I have a completely different reason to be happy about Skype being ported to the N800: Skype works.
I suppose that most of you live in the US, and use the sip either at home or on Internet cafe. Under those conditions indeed sip works and is a better choice than skype.
Under other conditions, the view is quite different. For example, I have travelled in Asia, Australia and New Zealand lately. I thought I could use gizmo to phone back home on decent rate (just wifi access fees).
SIP is blocked in most hotspots. Purposefully. Wouldn't your know it: most hotspots in tourist places have been bought by telcos, and grouped in networks. And telcos don't like free competition... For example in New Zealand: you can get a card to use wifi in hotspots all around the country from NZ telecom. Not really cheap, but much cheaper than cellphone roaming charges. Except that you can't phone using SIP, because NZ telecom won't let you. And good luck trying to find an hotspot you could use outside of Auckland which is not operated by NZ telecom.
Hotels with wifi access are coming to the same conclusion: let people use their room phone instead. In all fairness, I sould say that if more than one customer starts to use SIP on the hotel router, things won't work very well. Anyway: bye, bye SIP.
It's not only NZ, you'll find the same story everywhere. For example, I live in Germany. T-online bought about all start-up wifi networks two years ago. Only Vodafone has a decent competing network. Both are telcos, say bye bye to sip. Skype works, and the reason it is not that easilly blocked is because the protocol is secret, of course. It's trivial to block an open protocol. As much as I like open source, I have to realise that this is a weakness here.
Now, talk about phoning at home, on you own router. Wouldn't you know it? Telcos have understood that SIP is competition, and they've found a very creative way to kill it. For example in France, everyone knowadays uses a "freebox". It's a wifi router you get from orange (ex France telecom). It comes with an "internet phone". Looks like a good offer.
Except that this "internet phone" is SIP, and orange won't let other SIP networks call their SIP phone for free. Except that this "internet phone" is SIP, and grabs the SIP ports (of course). Try to use SIP on a computer connected to the router, and it won't work (of course). It could work, if you are computer literate enough to let your SIP client use non-standard ports and to configure the router firewall accordingly. Most people don't know how to do that. Skype does that automatically.
Nokia had a brilliant idea with the 770 originally: make a wifi phone, using SIP. Except that roaming with SIP is less and less possible. Now they try Skype. I can understand that.
@Jerome: A very good summary of the situation.
What's really needed here is that we all start to push harder for network neutrality, that's not only about charging differently for different services, what's really important is to get written in stone that it's illegal to cut off competition. Which is, in fact, illegal in many other segments. If telecoms can't be neutral then they should not be allowed to own any network services, they should only be allowed to own the physical infrastructure. Cables. Not what's running on them. In other words, "behave, or..!"
benny1967
2007-07-10, 13:46
SIP is blocked in most hotspots. Purposefully. Wouldn't your know it: most hotspots in tourist places have been bought by telcos, and grouped in networks. And telcos don't like free competition...
Basically, exactly what you're trying to sell as an advantage is Skypes main disadvantage: It is not a good internet citizen. It does not use well defined ports. Actually, it hijacks the existing infrastructure in a very impolite way. Again, while you might enjoy this as long as you benefit from it, you have to ask yourself: "What if everyone did that?"
It is a good thing that the owner of a network has control over what's happening. He is legally responsible (in most countries) and he wants to provide a certain user experience for all of his users. Now if you build a hotspot for your customers to surf the web and read their mails, you need to calculate the amount of bandwidth you'll typically need for all of them to surf at a decent speed. Good. Now one of these customers tunnels his filesharing traffic over port 80, uses Skype and does a number of other things the network wasn't designed for... As long as it's one customer, it'll probably go unnoticed (except that there might be legal implications). But if everyone does it, you'll run into troubles.
My experience is that many hotspots don't block SIP for the reason that they don't want VoIP. They simply block everything thats not needed for surfing and mailing. I usually can't chat (IRC), can't do filesharing, can't use instant messaging .... So I don't believe you can't do SIP because they want to block VoIP. If they really, really wanted to block all kinds of VoIP, they'd have to start with Skype simply because it's popular (there are ways to do this, although its more complex than blocking a port).
So the bottom line is that with Skype "works everywhere" translates to "abuses network infrastructure". I wouldn't dare to sell this as a good thing, let alone as an advantage.
I can't stress fully how much I disagree with benny1967. It's turning the whole thing upside down. If the transport layer (which is what the hotspot or other AP is laying down) should start sensoring all the traffic then where should it stop? It's like a road. You can't and you shan't try to keep control over what's transported, but you can impose speed (bandwidth) limits: Add speedbumps where deemed necessary.
And as for blocking SIP: There's no doubt that when telcos block SIP it's because it's a competitor, not because of bandwidth, legal issues or anything else. It's about killing competition, full stop. There have been enough actual cases described in the media the last year to support this conclusion.
benny1967
2007-07-10, 14:32
I can't stress fully how much I disagree with benny1967. It's turning the whole thing upside down. If the transport layer (which is what the hotspot or other AP is laying down) should start sensoring all the traffic then where should it stop? It's like a road. You can't and you shan't try to keep control over what's transported, but you can impose speed (bandwidth) limits: Add speedbumps where deemed necessary.
In fact there's laws to enforce just what I said: If I run a hotspot, it's my legal duty to do as much as I can to make sure nothing illegal will be done by its users. A reasonable means of doing this is blocking certain websites and ports that are known to be risky. (And this is what people do when they run hotspots.)
Even if the legal situation might be different in other countries, it's still my hotspot. I can do whatever I want. I can block the whole web except bible-related sites. I can make it available only for email an block http completely. Whatever I want - or whatever I need to do (an increasing number of access points have to follow corporate security guidlines; their admins hate Skype for what it forces them to do).
And as for blocking SIP: There's no doubt that when telcos block SIP it's because it's a competitor, not because of bandwidth, legal issues or anything else. It's about killing competition, full stop. There have been enough actual cases described in the media the last year to support this conclusion.
I never used a hotspot that was run by a telco. All I can say is that whenever I can't use SIP, I cannot use any other "exotic" services like IRC or such, many times I can't even ping a public server from such a network. So I have no reason to believe its a "no-SIP-policy". Its probably more of a "web and mail only"-policy. But, of course, this may vary with other hotspots.
Oh, and speaking of competition or "killing competition": If this is your concern, don't use Skype. Skype kills competition.
That last paragraph just shows that you don't really get it. Skype competes with their _product_, while telcos that blocks SIP (or other VoIP. Really. This has been in the press _everywhere_!) cuts competition by removing competitor's access. Telcos that do this don't _want_ to compete. This is in fact against the law in some countries (if they can't keep their roles apart they are not allowed to mix them), and should be in more.
EDIT: Note that I'm talking about publicly provided networks, if you want to provide some free access to passers-by from your home network then by all means you have the right to block anything you want.
benny1967
2007-07-10, 15:05
That last paragraph just shows that you don't really get it.
OK...
Skype competes with their _product_, while telcos [...] don't _want_ to compete.
Yes, we're talking about 2 strategies here, both of which can kill competition effectively, but on a different level.
Have a nice day. If you have a N800, enjoy Skype... it's ab Benny1967-free zone. ;)
Sorry about the 'don't get it', btw. Bad wording on my part, pls. ignore everything before 'Skype competes with..'. My point was the two strategies, as you say, and indeed I (and some lawmakers some places, fortunately) consider the 'cut off' strategy illegal and unfair.
As for enjoying Skype.. I'll do my best! :) As I've said elsewhere I would still have preferred an open Skype if that could be possible. If the SIP-blocking and all that disappeared we could all concentrate on getting the best open products on the market.
If the SIP-blocking and all that disappeared we could all concentrate on getting the best open products on the market.
And that's just it. Some people focus so much on the dream of making that IF reality that they take immediate umbrage at something like Skype. I think that anger is seriously misdirected, and it's why I responded to the rebuttals in the first place. Thank you, Jerome and TA-t3, for making the salient points much better than I did.
I have to say that I see Skype in two lights -- one is as an internet-era company that sees the technology has arrived* to break the grip of the oligarchic telcos. (Who block advances for that very reason.)
The other is as described, the owned-by-a-big-company, using closed software, proprietary and not necessarily a good citizen.
I might lean towards the former interpretation most of the time. I don't think it's a bad thing at all that someone is wielding kryptonite against the telco's.
But my point isn't "Yea! Skype!" My point is that the usefulness of Skype's large user base is way more than Gizmo's or Google Talk's. And if I could use my Verizon FiOS router to make Gizmo calls, I would but I can't. [Hm-m. Points made earlier in this thread are very interesting in that regard.]
A phone tied to a desktop computer (even if just for dialing and answering) or to a not-really-that portable laptop makes ALL voip frustrating, at the ease-of-use level compared to any cordless or cell phone.
So voip on N800 that starts out with a large potential base of people to call at no charge and, of course, includes every phone at way-better-than-cellphone rates -- well, that's something to cheer about, in my book.
If my wife is making a call on our house phone, and I want to join a conference call while making a sandwich and then heading outside to eat it -- Skype looks like it will give me that alternative, which I didn't have before. Gizmo on the conference call number I use was a dismal bomb.
Hey, a cheap second line and third line with the same walkaround convenience of any other phone -- why shouldn't we be cheered by that?
Roger
__________
* Heck, in 1979 I saw Microsoft in the same light, with IBM and other big-computer companies playing the heavies. Does anyone here remember IBM intentionally hobbled its PCjr so as not to threaten its more-expensive models? Yes, a technology company that felt it didn't need to offer ever-improving capabilities, because it controlled its markets so effectively.
@Jerome: A very good summary of the situation.
What's really needed here is that we all start to push harder for network neutrality, that's not only about charging differently for different services, what's really important is to get written in stone that it's illegal to cut off competition. Which is, in fact, illegal in many other segments. If telecoms can't be neutral then they should not be allowed to own any network services, they should only be allowed to own the physical infrastructure. Cables. Not what's running on them. In other words, "behave, or..!"
"Should", uh. Unfortunately, the law can only do so much and powerfull companies with clever lawyers usually find a way around it. Let's come back to the example from France I cited: orange is not purposely blocking SIP. They are offering an extra service that most customers choose. That the consequence is that most users will not be computer litterate enough to be able to run another SIP service on this router, is just a technical consequence. And if you are computer litterate enough, you can actually run another SIP service by reconfiguring the firewall.
But most people won't do that and this is a number game.
Jerome has a valid point: despite laws and regulations, companies can, do and will use passive-aggressive and FUD tactics to create or reinforce open source hurdles, tacitly or overtly. In the end the method of resistance doesn't matter to the average consumer who neither knows nor cares about the technical details or that solutions could be within their grasp with a little education. They just want a no-hassle service... hence the seduction of Skype.
Oh crap... I just made the Lemming argument. :eek: :D
Basically, exactly what you're trying to sell as an advantage is Skypes main disadvantage: It is not a good internet citizen. It does not use well defined ports. Actually, it hijacks the existing infrastructure in a very impolite way.
That's right, and is one of the reason that skype is a network administrator nightmare. I know that.
It is a good thing that the owner of a network has control over what's happening. He is legally responsible (in most countries) and he wants to provide a certain user experience for all of his users. Now if you build a hotspot for your customers to surf the web and read their mails, you need to calculate the amount of bandwidth you'll typically need for all of them to surf at a decent speed. Good. Now one of these customers tunnels his filesharing traffic over port 80, uses Skype and does a number of other things the network wasn't designed for...
As already pointed out, we are not talking about a privately run hotspot here, for which correct netiquette would be the least you can do.
Neither are we talking about GSM networks, who have the problem that a GSM voice call uses typically 12 Kb/s, whereas SIP uses at least 45 Kb/s because of network overhead. Not that I have great sympathy for cell phone operators, but still...
We are talking about the fine line between assigning network ressources correctly and plain anticompetitive practices.
May I tell you that I would be willing to pay extra for a hotspot where SIP would work? But there aren't any left in most places where tourist are likely to roam. The few times where I could find one (usually privately owned internet cafes) I used that (and tried not to abuse things, not calling hours and not leaving gizmo active to block the SIP ports).
As long as it's one customer, it'll probably go unnoticed (except that there might be legal implications). But if everyone does it, you'll run into troubles.
Actually, because those hotspots use NAT, only one client can use SIP at a time. The first to come blocks the port.
My experience is that many hotspots don't block SIP for the reason that they don't want VoIP. They simply block everything thats not needed for surfing and mailing. I usually can't chat (IRC), can't do filesharing, can't use instant messaging .... So I don't believe you can't do SIP because they want to block VoIP.
No, they explicitly block SIP. I could chat and use instant messages. I never use file sharing, so I don't know about that, maybe they also block it.
But I think that you are missing the point. The point is about Nokia. With the 770 / N800, Nokia built a device to be used as a SIP phone. 2 years after, SIP won't work in many place. For them it makes perfect sense to team up with Skype.
In the end the method of resistance doesn't matter to the average consumer who neither knows nor cares about the technical details or that solutions could be within their grasp with a little education. They just want a no-hassle service... hence the seduction of Skype.
Oh crap... I just made the Lemming argument. :eek: :D
This is not a lemming argument at all. It is about using what works with the least effort and least cost, not doing what everybody else is doing.
I think that using what works is a perfectly valid position.
As to resistance, expect Skype to be blocked before long. It has already happened in some middle west countries (can't remember which one, I think Koweit or Dubai) who want to protect their local telco revenues for international calls. Although another thing which they don't like is that Skype encrypts your phone calls.
My point is that the usefulness of Skype's large user base is way more than Gizmo's or Google Talk's.
The gizmo user base is bigger than you may think. Using sipbroker, you can actually call (for free, using a direct i.p. link) about every SIP phone on the planet. Except telcos like orange which refuse sipbroker exchange, of course.
And if I could use my Verizon FiOS router to make Gizmo calls, I would but I can't. [Hm-m. Points made earlier in this thread are very interesting in that regard.]
Gizmo uses the SIP protocol, but on non-standard ports. The most likely reason why it would not work is:
-that your router does not release incoming ports (is not "plug and play" compatible), in which case you'll have to configure the ports manually.
-that your router blocks udp traffic.
From the gizmo manual:
For Gizmo to work effectively, the following should be opened up on your firewall:
• Incoming UDP port 5005 (RTCP - Real Time Control Protocol)
• Incoming UDP port 64064 (Gizmo default for SIP messaging)
• Incoming UDP port 5004 (Gizmo default for RTP traffic (the actual voice messages)
• Outgoing TCP port 7070 (SRS relay and Jabber protocol)
• All outgoing UDP ports above 1023
Using VPN solves many of the 'blocking' problems. The VPN user base is so large that hopefully there'll be massive wide-spread outrage if/when telcos or ISPs start disrupting VPN.
This is not a lemming argument at all. It is about using what works with the least effort and least cost, not doing what everybody else is doing.
I was facetiously referring to another post. ;)
benny1967
2007-07-10, 17:17
Some people focus so much on the dream of making that IF reality that they take immediate umbrage at something like Skype. I think that anger is seriously misdirected, [...]
Maybe you'd understand the anger if consider my situation regarding VoIP. With my current (SIP-based) setup, I have
a call-in number for free (SkypeIn: no local numbers available for my country; if they were or if I chose a neighboring country: €57,50/year (!!))
€ 0,0179/min for national landline calls, flatrates available (Skype: € 0,020, flatrates available)
several providers to choose from for any kind of call so for each call I can use the cheapest (Skype: well, Skype. They dictate the price.)
Client with video support for GNU/Linux (Skype: no video support)
I dont have technical difficulties with SIP, it just works (and I've never been "blocked" although my ISP is a telco). It's much cheaper than Skype would ever be. It offers more technically. I use it daily. So there's no dream of making IF reality. It is reality. (While Skype wouldnt even offer a call-in number.)
So what makes me angry then? That Skype, like a dangerous black hole in space, increases its gravity by adding more users who in turn increase the gravity and attract more users who ... etc. That they charge more and offer less and can get away with it only because they're big - really big. And, above all, that I cannot reach Skype users by VoIP although I can reach customers of most every other VoIP service.
The momentum of the Skype-hype forces me to either join (which I refuse to do, because this would add some more gravity to the black hole) or to explain over and over again to each of my friends that, yes, they can reach me by VoIP, but they please have to go and download, install, register... etc., even though they already have VoIP. They do this (most of them) because they know I'm quirky and can deal with it. Still it would be so much easier if one could simply call people without having to worry which service they use. (I can call anyone via landline without having to register with his provider, cant I?) If Skype would only open a gateway to SIP users, all would be fine. They could still use whatever protocol they want within their network.
Thats where the anger comes from, apart from all other things I've stated before about Skype users not being good net citizens and such, which is less emotional and doesn't cause anger - not yet ;). The anger, btw, is mainly directed not at Skype (they want to maximize their profits, thats all), but at those who add mass to the black hole.
benny1967
2007-07-10, 17:20
You win again. :p
You dont bring me flowers anymore ... :mad:
:D
You dont bring me flowers anymore ... :mad:
:D
I have some pretty nightshade...
So what makes me angry then? That Skype, like a dangerous black hole in space, increases its gravity by adding more users who in turn increase the gravity and attract more users who ... etc. That they charge more and offer less and can get away with it only because they're big - really big. And, above all, that I cannot reach Skype users by VoIP although I can reach customers of most every other VoIP service.
Well... I should say that I can understand your concerns.
If I can be of any help: I only know of ONE person who uses skype and many more who use SIP...
I don't really know anyone using SIP, although I know of a couple of folks that have tried it. Most use Skype. In other words, people's experiences will be different.
That been said, I agree totally with benny1967 about wishing for SIP interoperability support in Skype.
nice to know 100million people that use skype, unfortunately even though I have a very large network of friends, I only know 1 person that uses it, so I have about 10,000 reasons not to use it :-D unless of course Nokia wants to send me a bluetooth headset that actuallyworks with the n800 and a free calling plan to regular phones...
I find that using a wired headset works fine, though some people seem to find it technologically humiliating -- not cool enough.
I don't find $30 a year that oppressive, especially considering, for example, that many companies charge that much a month for wireless access at places such as Starbucks, or, if you don't want a month's worth, you can get it for $10 a day. Even Vonage costs about that much a month.
I think that all computer users everywhere have to realize that it costs money for some things.
BTW: How exactly would we push for "net neutrality" in places like Russia, where I lived for a few years, or China?
Also, true net neutrality seems to me to be hard to come by. When I lived in Russia, because of the nature of the building I was in, I had to use a dial-up. (Eventually I got a faster connection, but to do so I had to have a radio transmitter installed on top of my building, pay a $500 installation fee, and pay connection fees of approximately $100 a week if I carefully limited my connection and stayed away from Internet broadcasting.) So things were abysmally slow, though most Russians in big cities now have fairly easy access to faster networks. But we can't exactly legislate that users of Dial-up have as quick access as everyone else. And I have heard that scientists are working on a faster Internet, one that only scientists can use now. Shall we mandate that anyone can used the science Internet?
[net neutrality]
The way I see it it isn't as much about giving everybody equal bandwidth, for me the issue is along the following lines: Imagine you travel from hotel to hotel, and this hotel chain provides free wi-fi (or even pay wi-fi, but except for the more expensive US hotels it seems to be free most places now). You use Skype, or possibly Gizmo to communicate with your fellow humans.
Then one day the wi-fi operations in this hotel chain is bought out by a company that is also in the business of selling voip phone kits. The first thing they do is to block Gizmo and Skype. And oh, they sell email accounts to ("sign up for your account at shocksmock.com"!), so they also block access to gmail.com and yahoo. And so on. That's what seems to be happening certain places, to a bigger or lesser degree. This is something that must be stopped, and _now_, or it's too late.
Or you have a choice of 1 or 2 ISPs that will connect your home to the Internet, but lo and behold they both want to sell you their own VoIP so they too block Gizmo (they're not competent enough to block Skype, fortunately.. ;)). What are you to do?
I know a big telecom in India is trying to block Skype, and one of the larger ones in China (but not the one operating around Beijing, the last time I was there). Both do this because they're in the business of selling phone landlines. Tmobile appeared to be blocking access to my ssl-secured imap server (in a hotel where I had to buy access), at least that was the only hotel (I visited many the last few weeks) where this was a problem.
There's another kind of net neutrality that's up in the news these days, where telecoms want Google and other popular sites to pay lots of money to the telcos. This is also important stuff, although not of direct consequence to us end-users, at least right away. (The blocking described above is quite immediate!) But that to will kill us somewhen in the future, when only the big and rich information providers can get access to a full-bandwidth pipe, and the small ones can't. Then only the rich ones will be left, say goodbye to popular but poor blog sites, for example. I suspect that even some of the rich ones will help fight this though, so for now as a layman I'll keep fighting the port blocking.. :cool:
nice to know 100million people that use skype,
That number completely exaggerated. I have a few test accounts for skype as it takes only seconds to get them. They are all inactive, but count to the "100 million".
Last time I checked there were about 8 Million online users at Skype. Certainly impressive, but far away from the 100 mio.
There's apparently been something like 100 million downloads at least (actually that number is quite old -- from when there used to be about 2.5 million online users at any one time). If that translates to 100 million registered users these days, only Skype knows. I can easily believe that there must be at least four or five times as many registered users as there are online users. I know some people that are online only for a few days at the time now and then, and even at work where we actively use Skype there are only about 10% online as of this moment (holidays etc., but even when everybody's here there's about 1/2 - 2/3 online at the same time). That the number of online users just keep growing tells much I think.
reading the nytimes today about eBay's financial results...
"...the Internet phone service Skype, which eBay acquired in 2005 for more than $2.6 billion, continues to contribute relatively little. Skype brought in only $90 million during the quarter, though its user base grew 94 percent from last year’s second quarter and now totals 220 million registered users..."
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.