Somewhere, some company will level the playing field on this feature. It's happened to phone companies, why not on this app?
Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
61–70 of 93 posts
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#62Not fair. I pay my operator a monthly fee for mobile data (10 € for unlimited 384 kb/s including two SIMs / devices, to be exact). Skype pays for their incoming/outgoing data – it doesn't cost extra for them whether the data is originated from mobile network or network. Skype is simply not justified to charge extra based on client's connection type, not even if I used Iridium network to route my bytes to them. Maybe…
Skype-to-skype is cool but when you're tethered to a computer and internet connection it clearly has limited to value to most people. Now that phones that run apps and have internet connections are popular the game is changed entirely. They had to give it away for free before because it wasn't as useful. When you can use this on the go it becomes much more useful and they will see many more people using it. When thin…
Then moneytize transparently, i.e. based on true costs. Charging for skype-to-skype calls is fine as long as clients are treated equally whether they were using dial-up, wifi, satellite or avian carriers. The type of client's connection is as unrelated as the color of his/her socks.
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#63From Skype's perspective, how is the cell network different from any other ISP? It's the carriers who will shoulder the burden; and there's no indication that any of the fee is going to them, given that Skype says "operator fees may still apply". I don't get it.
It's many times more useful to use Skype on your mobile. If you're on 3G, it means you have no access to desktop Skype. And if it's more useful to you, they can charge for it.
The extra usability is a function of the carrier's network, not anything on Skype's end. And since many of us are already paying our carriers for data plans, why should Skype arbitrarily charge us a second time? I still don't get it.
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 loc…
Last time I checked Skype's user count was above 500 million and they have 50+ million daily active users. Their network effect is pretty huge.
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#65was it a promise to be free forever? or just one of their features, which they are free to change whenever they wish?
http://www.skype.com/intl/en/security/safety/safe-payments/
Skype-to-Skype calls will always be free
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 loc…
Quote: I don't think the "mundanes" really use Skype You are wrong based on my experiences. Skype is used for free international calls all over the world by "mundanes". Immigrants use it to communicate to their home countries. A local immigrant-run mom&pop store in my Helsinki neighborhood is even advertising Skype-calls in addition to normal international calls. And I think that Skype has some brand value as it's be…
Semantics - I just don't see any point in calling Skype users "mundanes". They had the incentive to learn how to use the technology because of the cost savings, they'll have that incentive again in the future if it becomes necessary. I think we're basically in agreement.
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 loc…
Last time I checked Skype's user count was above 500 million and they have 50+ million daily active users. Their network effect is pretty huge.
That really depends on the average size of someone's network. How many networks are only composed of 2-3 endpoints? (most common example - talking to family "back home"). Compare to Facebook's 100+ average network size.
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 d…
> 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.
> "clamping down on (VOIP|Gaming|long-lived downloads|P2P streams)" is
P2P streams and long-lived downloads have two major things in common: heavy bandwidth over long periods of time. Those activities, in particular, are considerably heavier on the network than, say, downloading a single, or even a series of webpages.
One way the major carriers can do this is by disallowing certain kinds of activities. For example, as seen on the iPhone, users are not allowed to download files more than 10MB in size. That isn't a case of "what" a person can download, but instead an issue of "how much" a person can download in a small period of time. Is that still 'net neutrality'? And, if not, then how is VOIP any different?
(This is under the presupposition that the price increase was ATT's doing, and they're not doing it because it's taking away from their profits; but instead they're fearing that VOIP will cause an even greater tax on their already strained network.)
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Skype-to-skype is cool but when you're tethered to a computer and internet connection it clearly has limited to value to most people. Now that phones that run apps and have internet connections are popular the game is changed entirely. They had to give it away for free before because it wasn't as useful. When you can use this on the go it becomes much more useful and they will see many more people using it. When thin…
Then moneytize transparently, i.e. based on true costs. Charging for skype-to-skype calls is fine as long as clients are treated equally whether they were using dial-up, wifi, satellite or avian carriers. The type of client's connection is as unrelated as the color of his/her socks.
People always seem to think that things are priced according to the cost to the supplier, that is wrong. Goods and services are priced to what the consumer will pay for them. Skype are providing a service and people are (they hope) willing to pay for the convenience of having it on their phone. Welcome to the free market.
Re: Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's many times more useful to use Skype on your mobile. If you're on 3G, it means you have no access to desktop Skype. And if it's more useful to you, they can charge for it.
The extra usability is a function of the carrier's network, not anything on Skype's end. And since many of us are already paying our carriers for data plans, why should Skype arbitrarily charge us a second time? I still don't get it.
It's pretty straightforward and not very "nice":
> why should Skype arbitrarily charge us a second time?
1) because they can; 2) who's going to stop them (definitely not carries who gain on that agreement)