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

81–90 of 93 posts

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

#81

Post by dedward »

amix wrote: post #64
alex_c wrote: post #49

Earlier 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.

It is humungous, to be sure.

The only reason skype is the king right now is because nobody has motivation to switch to anything else. Skype works, without hassle. It's a good product.

The moment it ceases to be a good product, though, there is nothing holding them in their marketplace. The world can hop onto a new piece of p2p VOIP software in the blink of an eye.

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

#82

Post by stretchwithme »

milkshakes wrote: post #65
stretchwithme wrote: post #33

was 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

yep, it does say that quite clearly

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

#83

Post by Yaggo »

hartror wrote: post #69
Yaggo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since Skype uses proprietary protocol and is the most popular VoIP service by huge margin, I wouldn't call the market entirely free. They almost have a monopol, sort of.

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

#84

Post by qq66 »

philwelch wrote: post #74
hartror wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're both wrong--and rehashing an old argument that got resolved a long time ago. Goods and services are priced based on both the supply side and the demand side, specifically upon the intersection of the supply and demand curve.

Not in a monopolistic environment, which due to Skype's strong network effect it may effectively be. The concept of a demand curve depends on multiple suppliers with different reservation prices.

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

#85

Post by viraptor »

neonfunk wrote: post #78
viraptor wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

No one's going to stop them from doing what's within the law; that's a given. I'm saying it strikes me as unethical, and it assumes a certain infancy in the public's tech acumen... which perhaps there is! But it still seems like a poor assumption to base a business on going forward. Now I'm just hoping someone comes out with a iChat/AIM/Jabber/GTalk-like P2P standard for voice (does this already exist?).

Not sure about iChat and AIM, but GTalk already uses an XMPP-based protocol called Jingle. Theoretically you can use it between any 2 jabber clients which support it.

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

#86

Post by gizmomagico »

Yaggo wrote: post #83
hartror wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since Skype uses proprietary protocol and is the most popular VoIP service by huge margin, I wouldn't call the market entirely free. They almost have a monopol, sort of.

Sori nyt vaan mutta sun kannattais kiinnittää vähän huomiota mm. artikkeleihin.. :) "A protocol", "A margin", eikä "monopoli":sta tuu englantia ottamalla lopusta i pois.

( He's Finnish and his English contains mistakes that are typical for Finns, which is unfortunate, and could be avoided )

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

#87

Post by philwelch »

qq66 wrote: post #84
philwelch wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're both wrong--and rehashing an old argument that got resolved a long time ago. Goods and services are priced based on both the supply side and the demand side, specifically upon the intersection of the supply and demand curve.

Not in a monopolistic environment, which due to Skype's strong network effect it may effectively be. The concept of a demand curve depends on multiple suppliers with different reservation prices.

No, there's still a demand curve. A monopoly has the power to set a vertical supply curve wherever they want (i.e. at the profit maximizing point) but the demand curve is still simply the demand curve.

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

#88

Post by qq66 »

philwelch wrote: post #87
qq66 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in a monopolistic environment, which due to Skype's strong network effect it may effectively be. The concept of a demand curve depends on multiple suppliers with different reservation prices.

No, there's still a demand curve. A monopoly has the power to set a vertical supply curve wherever they want (i.e. at the profit maximizing point) but the demand curve is still simply the demand curve.

Yes sorry, meant supply curve.

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

#89

Post by OoTheNigerian »

Frazzydee wrote: post #48
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Ok. That's much better. When people maike claims, it is always good to put evidence. The discussion would have been different if that was put there.

But I believe charging is the only was that network operators will allow Skype to work at all. It would be good if they explained it that way.

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

#90

Post by jerguismi »

gizmomagico wrote: post #86
Yaggo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Skype uses proprietary protocol and is the most popular VoIP service by huge margin, I wouldn't call the market entirely free. They almost have a monopol, sort of.

Sori nyt vaan mutta sun kannattais kiinnittää vähän huomiota mm. artikkeleihin.. :) "A protocol", "A margin", eikä "monopoli":sta tuu englantia ottamalla lopusta i pois. ( He's Finnish and his English contains mistakes that are typical for Finns, which is unfortunate, and could be avoided )

pilikun nussija
Post reply on HN