[deleted]
Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
101–110 of 180 posts
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. I can't see myself using it for work though, which the majority of my Skype calls tend to be.
My team has been using appear.in for about two years now (I introduced it to them smug ). http://appear.in/some_words_doesnt_matter <- share with whoever, instant video call
We use Skype for Business at work, however when the boss isn't watching we switch to appear.in since it works much better and doesn't require craptastic software.
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#103It sucks - but as is always the case with free vs nonfree software - there are few alternatives. Among the few alternatives available are Google (hangouts) and Facebook. Stallman waves his hand and mentions Jitsi and Mumble which aren't comparable in features to Skype (Chat + Voice + video + desktop sharing on all platforms including mobile). Jitsi does look promising but not quite complete. A chat/voice app is like…
But did you _actually_ try the alternatives? I've been using mumble for more than a decade now, and I've pushing it into 3 working places as a substitute to skype, asterix and lync (the microsoft voip solution). It's not really oriented for 1-1 conversation, which is odd to use at first, but once people start to use channels and the built-in chat you hardly go back. The latency and voice quality is stunning, even acr…
I don't know if Mumble (or Ventrilo, or Teamspeak, or Discord) are really comparable.
They require you run your own server (although Discord abstracts that), that everyone know the server details, and that everyone be authenticated for your server in some manner.
They're great for playing video games, but Skype matches up a lot better with what a lot of people use it for – making phone calls.
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I don't disagree that he sounds, in general, like a bit of a douche, you can hardly say that this rider makes him an asshole. He lays out, reasonably, the conditions under which he will speak. He asks for tea, and Pepsi, not Coke. Seems utterly reasonable to me.
So if Coca Cola is the only thing available, he will just refuse. I personally prefer Coke, but I'm not going to walk off stage if I am offered Pepsi. A bit rock-starish if you ask me.
> A bit rock-starish if you ask me.
If you read the riders of actual rock stars, you will find that RMS's rider isn't that extreme. He doesn't even require M&M's sorted by color[1].
Most hired performers have specific riders that detail exactly what will be provided by the venue/etc. Detailing your interactions as specifically as possible in an actual contract removes ambiguity and prevents mistakes and misunderstandings.
[1] http://brianlord.org/2014/08/21/the-surprising-reason-rock-b...
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#105Another reason not to use Skype is that their support is pretty poor. They've deleted Skype numbers from my account without warning. Someone linked my and my wife's account because we used them on the same PC, and refuse to unlink Skype and Microsoft accounts. I'd love to find an alternative, but given that everybody already has Skype accounts the lock-in is pretty significant. Don't much like the alternatives Stallm…
Discord might be an alternative for team/friend based conversations. They have group calling (don't need to share a server) now. Problem is that it's marketed towards gamers and so might not be fit for purpose for business purposes
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to be Facebook friends to complete a call but I can still see that expectation being an obstacle to establishing one. Is there a space for a very simple WebRTC call application? It seems like everyone is focused on video calling or more full-featured products.
I'd love it if the default was to use some very lightweight WebRTC app where you just created a new link for each conversation. I don't think it's likely to happen any time soon unfortunately. Regarding Facebook, it still feels weird, I'm not sure I can put my finger on exactly why. I just want to keep "friends" and "business" totally separate.
How was this service Mozilla once included in their browser called, something from Telefonica? Worked pretty well for me. Maybe they ditched it to early?
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
But did you _actually_ try the alternatives? I've been using mumble for more than a decade now, and I've pushing it into 3 working places as a substitute to skype, asterix and lync (the microsoft voip solution). It's not really oriented for 1-1 conversation, which is odd to use at first, but once people start to use channels and the built-in chat you hardly go back. The latency and voice quality is stunning, even acr…
I don't know if Mumble (or Ventrilo, or Teamspeak, or Discord) are really comparable. They require you run your own server (although Discord abstracts that), that everyone know the server details, and that everyone be authenticated for your server in some manner. They're great for playing video games, but Skype matches up a lot better with what a lot of people use it for – making phone calls.
True, but I'd like to mention that these are still valid options for companies and teams. Not to mention that latency will inevitably be superior with a local server.
I'm not sure there's a way around it. Skype is pretty much centralized now. Alternatives using NAT-piercing solutions never worked as reliably for me, and the ID still needs a central directory anyway.
What we ended up doing for flexibility is letting our mumble server open (passwordless access), but speaking is disabled in the root channel, so it's useless for strangers. Secondary channels are password protected, guests cannot join, but teams can set up their hierarchy as they see fit.
When we invite a guest, we just point him to the mumble installer and our server. When he pops up, we drag him into the right channel. No password necessary. It's a fairly smooth experience. Definitely not as fast as a skype group call the first time, but just as good after that. In fairness, this beats pretty much any dedicated conference system I had to use elsewhere.
The channel permissions in mumble are pretty flexible, so there are multiple workflows possible.
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#108Agreed, use anything else (but whatsapp)
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#109The problem with his first argument is that it is a logical fallacy (affirming a disjunct). Just because one does not say A, does not mean that it automatically must be B. He says "most likely", but even this is not certain. I agree, it feels that it must be true. But then again this is an inductive fallacy. Simply because most companies we know that have acted in such a way actually were eavesdropping on its custome…
Big fancy words with zero content and a complete lack of arguments.
> He says "most likely", but even this is not certain.
That is the exact meaning of most likely.
> Simply because most companies we know that have acted in such a way actually were eavesdropping on its customers, one cannot say with certainty that this is a general rule.
It would be plain idiotic to not assume the worst until proven otherwise, especially after everything we learned in the past few years.
Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)
#110For once I agree with RS; I haven't used Skype in ages, particularly because it's just crappy software.
Honestly, I'd view Skype as malware at this point, the number of exploits is too damn high and it barely integrates with anything ever. It's the kind of integration you'd normally see from a cheap car purchase where the Entertainment System is a iPhone 2 taped to the seats and the trunk smells like dead raccoon.