Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

skypejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#41

Post by masklinn »

sukuriant wrote: post #24
ericz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't net neutrality prevent AT&T from charging more just because Skype uses a certain part of the internet?

This isn't a net neutrality issue. This is a 'people are circumventing our system through our system and we need to stop them', as well as a "our networks are HEAVY LADEN with traffic because of all these smart phones we didn't quite have the infrastructure to support. We need to start clamping down a little" issue (I imagine)

> This isn't a net neutrality issue.

Of course it is. Packets should be packets, if you don't have the network to handle the packets, lower caps or raise prices, don't start making people pay based on the kind of packets they send or receive. It is precisely a NN issue.

> " We need to start clamping down a little" issue (I imagine)

"Clamping down a little" is not a problem, "clamping down on (VOIP|Gaming|long-lived downloads|P2P streams)" is

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#42

Post by jonknee »

neonfunk wrote: post #40
cabalamat wrote: post #17

I'm not bothered by this, because it's their funeral. There are other VoIP programs, it's not particularly difficult to write one, and with Android set to dominate open-architecture 3G phones, something else will dominate VoIP. Hopefully, something open source and using an open protocol. (SIP?) Oh and if you bought an iPhone and can't access the cost-free VoIP solution? That'll teach you to buy locked-down hardware,…

iPhone? I'm sure this will apply to Skype's Andrioid client, too. (Also, "you idiot"? Really?)

I'm pretty sure he was talking about Apple having the opportunity to block competing VoIP solutions (say Google Voice). With Gizmo going to Google you can bet that they will be doing really interesting things with SIP on Android.

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#43

Post by rmc »

cabalamat wrote: post #17

I'm not bothered by this, because it's their funeral. There are other VoIP programs, it's not particularly difficult to write one, and with Android set to dominate open-architecture 3G phones, something else will dominate VoIP. Hopefully, something open source and using an open protocol. (SIP?) Oh and if you bought an iPhone and can't access the cost-free VoIP solution? That'll teach you to buy locked-down hardware,…

It's not easy to create a competitor to Skype.

Skype's main attraction is not the technology, but the network effect and it's closed system. You could make a cool SIP client for Android/iPhone/etc. but it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't be able to talk to 90% of the mundane's who only have Skype.

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#44

Post by jonknee »

sukuriant wrote: post #21
iamdave wrote: post #3

I'm intensely curious who's pulling the strings behind this, is Skype really to blame or is it the mobile carriers putting pressure on them to collect more ARPU by creating yet another fee to collect from subscribers.

my bet is on the mobile carriers putting pressure on them, especially AT&T. The last I checked, Skype was still plenty free for Verizon. In fact, it seemed like Verizon and Skype took time to make sure their system worked wonderfully together, forcing local calls to go through Verizon themselves, international to have the option of going through Skype, and Skype to Skype going through a special phone number. In fact,…

If it was the carriers, Skype had all the hand--no one wants to hear that their carrier wants to make you pay more money. They could have announced that carriers were looking for ways to try and get you to pay but that Skype told them they wouldn't play ball. Instant win.

This stinks of a money grab on Skype's behalf.

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#45

Post by cgranade »

masklinn wrote: post #39
bruceboughton wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what this has to do with the iPhone hardware? Skype is charging for this, not Apple or the telcos, right?

> Can you explain what this has to do with the iPhone hardware? Nothing, cabalamat is just hating.

Far from it. If Apple has an off-switch for any potential competitor to AT&T, which any VoIP provider is, then the only way for another VoIP provider to take on Skype on the iPhone is to have enough market share outside of the iPOS garden to make it too costly for Apple to hit the kill switch.

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#46

Post by jonknee »

jallmann wrote: post #5
cookiecaper wrote: post #2

I guess I don't think it's that big of a deal. When Skype promised "free Skype-to-Skype", I don't think they considered that they would eventually be used on smartphones. It'd probably be smarter if they'd just charged a few bucks from the app first place, though. This may also be a condition imposed by Apple, because people with unlimited data plans would use Skype instead of their (limited) included airtime, which…

But does Skype via 3G actually cost them more than a WiFi call? Assuming their calls still use the data network, it's not like they have to buy and maintain gateway equipment. I don't see how the smartphone issue is relevant. I agree though, that this move may be more political than anything else w.r.t cellular partners.

It doesn't cost them anything more, but I bet it means more usage. It's a lot easier to have Skype always in your pocket than just when tied to WiFi. I think they foresaw a future when data-plan only phones make all their calls "for free" through Skype.

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#48

Post by Frazzydee »

OoTheNigerian wrote: post #19
arbitraryperson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they gave me their word!

where?

It still says so here: http://www.skype.com/intl/en/security/safety/safe-payments/

"Skype-to-Skype calls will always be free but there are a few things that cost a little such as calling mobiles and ordinary phones when you want to get hold of your friends that havent started using Skype yet."

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#49

Post by alex_c »

rmc wrote: post #43
cabalamat wrote: post #17

I'm not bothered by this, because it's their funeral. There are other VoIP programs, it's not particularly difficult to write one, and with Android set to dominate open-architecture 3G phones, something else will dominate VoIP. Hopefully, something open source and using an open protocol. (SIP?) Oh and if you bought an iPhone and can't access the cost-free VoIP solution? That'll teach you to buy locked-down hardware,…

It's not easy to create a competitor to Skype. Skype's main attraction is not the technology, but the network effect and it's closed system. You could make a cool SIP client for Android/iPhone/etc. but it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't be able to talk to 90% of the mundane's who only have Skype.

Skype's network effect and lock-in is extremely small compared to something like Facebook, or even something like an IM network.

Think about it: early adopters (techies) start using a free competitor (or several free competitors). They get their less tech-savvy friends and family to switch. The rest of the world follows. It's easy to explain ("It's like Skype"), the carrot is obvious ("except it's free"), and the lock-in is minimal - download a new client, enter the contact you want to call, and you're done. There's no chat history, or complex social network, or tons of uploaded pictures, etc. etc., to keep people from switching.

I don't think the "mundanes" really use Skype, they still use regular phones. If someone's savvy enough to use Skype, they're savvy enough to switch to a free competitor if it's good enough.

Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise

#50

Post by ig1 »

cabalamat wrote: post #17

I'm not bothered by this, because it's their funeral. There are other VoIP programs, it's not particularly difficult to write one, and with Android set to dominate open-architecture 3G phones, something else will dominate VoIP. Hopefully, something open source and using an open protocol. (SIP?) Oh and if you bought an iPhone and can't access the cost-free VoIP solution? That'll teach you to buy locked-down hardware,…

I'm guessing the reasoning behind this is that phone based Skype calls actually cost Skype money because more data has to be routed via them rather than the peer-to-peer infrastructure that regular desktop Skype uses. If there's a technical reason why this is the case (i.e. you can't use peer-to-peer on phones because of bandwidth issues) then I can't see how a competitor would be able to undercut them without finding someone to subsidise it.
Post reply on HN