Microsoft Agrees to Purchase Skype for $8.5 billion US.

May 10, 2011 5:04 AM

Microsoft Agrees to Purchase Skype for $8.5 billion US.
posted by Tenacious.Me.Tokyo (176 comments total)

.

for both of them
posted by unSane at 5:06 AM on May 10, 2011 [7 favorites]

This is why we can't have nice things on the internet.

sux
posted by lampshade at 5:09 AM on May 10, 2011 [8 favorites]

What other crappy software can we get for $7 Billion? Quicken? Desqview?

. for both of them indeed.
posted by seanyboy at 5:09 AM on May 10, 2011

and just like that eBay's "mistake" is erased, hopefully this doesn't change Meg Whitman's decision to stay out of politics.
posted by jeremias at 5:13 AM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Guess the only thing to do is go make some popcorn...
posted by likeso at 5:14 AM on May 10, 2011

I tried to use Skype for something last week, but they wanted money. So I used Google Voice instead.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:15 AM on May 10, 2011 [13 favorites]

Aw man. I was _using_ Skype.

For your Mac users disgusted by the 5.0 update: I have a 2.8 installer I am willing to share.
posted by _Lasar at 5:16 AM on May 10, 2011 [6 favorites]

Microsoft: Throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.
posted by schmod at 5:17 AM on May 10, 2011 [8 favorites]

Stand up and take some action.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:20 AM on May 10, 2011

This reminds me of the Time Warner bought AOL. That's what all the kids are using, right?
posted by chemoboy at 5:20 AM on May 10, 2011 [5 favorites]

Aw man. I was _using_ Skype.

For your Mac users disgusted by the 5.0 update: I have a 2.8 installer I am willing to share.posted by _Lasar at 8:16 AM on May 10 [+] [!]

Please do. This new update is really intrusive and total overkill.
posted by Gungho at 5:21 AM on May 10, 2011

I used to be a huge fan of Desqview back in the day. In many ways it was far more powerful than early versions of Windows, and you could easily control it with scripts. I wanted to try programming it, but the API cost a fortune (for a struggling student). I emailed them and pointed this out, and they basically said "It cost us a lot, it should be worth something to you too". I didn't reply; if they couldn't figure out that getting people to produce software for Desqview would actually result in sales and increased market share then they were doomed. As in fact they were.

Microsoft ate their lunch and for years I couldn't do things under Windows that had been trivial under Desqview. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Desqview had released their API freely and it had been incorporated into more software. I suppose now we know: they'd have been bought out by Microsoft.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:21 AM on May 10, 2011 [6 favorites]

Microsoft: Throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

Are we under the impression that Google does it differently?
posted by 3.2.3 at 5:23 AM on May 10, 2011 [15 favorites]

Given the huge number of inlaws that suddenly got Skype when we had our kid, I'm not sure we could change our Babytime Delivery System at the moment.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:23 AM on May 10, 2011 [7 favorites]

I've always liked Skype. The software seems a bit bloated, and it's integration with web browsers is just mind numbingly awful. But I live in a different country to many of my friends and family, so it's useful.
But now I suppose I'll have to find another solution before Microsoft releases an update. They'll surely find some way to mess it up even more, if not make it completely unusable.
posted by conifer at 5:24 AM on May 10, 2011

Please do. This new update is really intrusive and total overkill.
Skype_2.8.0.851.dmg in my Dropbox. I can only say that this is the file I originally downloaded from skype.com. Trust no one.
posted by _Lasar at 5:26 AM on May 10, 2011 [5 favorites]

Whoa, this isn't news I expected to see when I woke up today.

I've been kind of ticked off at Skype lately, what with the 5.0 update and with them just generally writing a client that reminds me of old AOL versions of AIM, but you gotta admit, Skype has huge buy-in. When people on my campus talk about video chatting with their distant friends, they talk about "Skyping" them.

I wonder how much it will suck.
posted by aaronbeekay at 5:26 AM on May 10, 2011

VoIP and SIP are going to have a huge impact on the emerging mobile networks so this makes perfect sense for MSFT and their partnership with Nokia. Also not allowing Google + Android to have it has value.

MSFT has been making some bold moves in the wireless space. Google appears to be caught flat-footed.
posted by three blind mice at 5:26 AM on May 10, 2011 [5 favorites]

So I guess the current Linux version of Skype, which isn't great but at least works, will be the last Linux version of Skype.
posted by COD at 5:27 AM on May 10, 2011 [12 favorites]

I wonder how long it will take them to fuck Skype up as badly as they finally managed to fuck up Hotmail.
posted by localroger at 5:28 AM on May 10, 2011

We actually want Skype to lose out to open standards in the long run, but open standards that enforce almost unbreakable end-to-end encryption upon everyone, not the unencrpyted privacy wrecking ball bullshit that is AIM, MSN, Google Talk (jabber), Google voice (SIP), etc.

At present, all the business users are using SIP (RTP) over their VPNs for encrypting voice connections, but sadly almost no commoners are using Zfone (SRTP) for encrypting voice connections.

It's promising that anonops has spawned a little I2P movement. I'd assume they would've chosen Tor except I2P handles hidden services better than Tor and Tor's IM bundle only exists for Windows.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:28 AM on May 10, 2011 [3 favorites]

Yeah, Skype has caught on well with people who do international calling. I know people using it for voice or video chat between at least Germany, Turkey, China and the US.

Some of them even have dedicated Skype hardware. It would suck to have to find an alternative. But I guess that is the way it goes.
posted by _Lasar at 5:28 AM on May 10, 2011

I don't know much about Microsoft software these days but Windows 7 has been rock solid (we don't bother with basically anything else from them) and as a result, I am cautiously optimistic that Skype will finally be fixed. We use it all the time despite the bugs.

But I am concerned about the Linux version, which has been the most problematic (the Mac version of Skype has been the least problematic for us, while Screen Sharing under Windows 7 is an issue).
posted by juiceCake at 5:30 AM on May 10, 2011

Skype 2.8 for OSX is still available from the Skype site ... here
posted by woodblock100 at 5:30 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

So...Skype to become one huge ActiveX/Silverlight clusterfuck, then?
posted by Thorzdad at 5:33 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

What!? I still have about 3 bucks in my account. Fuck, they can have it. Fucking bullies. I hope they spend it on rancid candy and get yak sick.

DESQVIEW LIBERATION FRONT UNITED!
posted by loquacious at 5:34 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Shit, I am also going to need to find an alternative.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:35 AM on May 10, 2011

Great, because Microsoft have always been really successful with Internet companies.
posted by daveje at 5:35 AM on May 10, 2011

Oldversion.com for skype clients.

Coral Cache.
posted by loquacious at 5:37 AM on May 10, 2011

I live in Europe, my brother lives in Australia, and my parents live in the US. Skype has made unlimited communication dirt cheap. That said, I never use the client. I have Skype forwarding and online numbers set up so that I only use Skype over the (real) phone. I had to look up what all the fuss was about with version 5 when I read it above...

I have found no service that allows what I do with Skype so easily. Hopefully Microsoft doesn't screw this up.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 5:39 AM on May 10, 2011

Oh good, I was just about to have to learn to use that.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 5:39 AM on May 10, 2011 [3 favorites]

When I heard Microsoft was buying Skype, I didn't know whether to weep for Microsoft, or for Skype. So I wept for me instead.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:41 AM on May 10, 2011 [4 favorites]

That's too bad. I hope I'm wrong.
posted by rmmcclay at 5:43 AM on May 10, 2011

Hopefully Microsoft doesn't screw this up.

Seconding ... Our family too, has been transformed by Skype. Me in Tokyo, folks in Vancouver, brother in Germany/Thailand, grandchildren in Vancouver ... And all of us in pretty much daily contact. Even though we're scattered all over the planet, we've never been closer than we have these past few years.

For the Mac members, we can always use iChat or FaceTime, but with Windows users also in the mix, Skype has been the program of choice. Very much hoping the new bosses will maintain development on the Mac client; given that they would presumably want their program to have a 'global' reach, one would expect so ...
posted by woodblock100 at 5:44 AM on May 10, 2011

I *really* don't get it. Sure Skype has a very large userbase, but so what? Its not like suddenly they'll all start using Bing! just because they use Skype. Or that they will suddenly start coughing up $20/month or something. I really don't see how MS (or anyone) can leverage Skype into being worth $8B. Hell, I have a hard time seeing how they can leverage it into covering its long-term debt alone (~$600M). Their grip on the market would be trivially broken if they significantly raised their rates; the barrier to entry is way lower now.

I think monkey boy is even losing his basic bean-counter ability, about the only thing he had going for him.
posted by Bovine Love at 5:45 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

That pretty much tells me Microsoft is scared to death Google will take the Voice market, run it on an android tablet.
posted by elpapacito at 5:46 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

I really wonder if Microsoft has any sort of plan for what to do with Skype, or if they bought it because they had the money and didn't know what to do with that, or bought it with the intent to kill it. Probably the answer lies somewhere between the above choices. They certainly did a good job of killing the Kin, and Danger Inc. along with it, and even though I read good things about Windows Phone 7, I don't know anyone who actually uses it. I predict that, like Zune, Skype will end up as a freebie on XBox Live.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:48 AM on May 10, 2011

Microsoft has the potential to do much more with Skype than eBay ever would have. It'll be interesting to see in what existing MS technologies they incorporate the Skype logo. (xbox, smartphones, IM, etc)
posted by samsara at 5:49 AM on May 10, 2011

I distinctly recall a time in the early 90's when I marveled at the business acumen of the minds at Microsoft, and how they could do no wrong. Now it seem, 20 years on, that they can do no right.
posted by crunchland at 5:56 AM on May 10, 2011

VoIP and SIP are going to have a huge impact on the emerging mobile networks so this makes perfect sense for MSFT and their partnership with Nokia. Also not allowing Google + Android to have it has value.

Why would Google even be interested in Skype? The Android 2.3 supports native SIP connectivity. Google's actively working with U.S. carriers to get their numbers into Voice. Sprint customers for instance can directly port their number into Voice in a few seconds.

It's hopefully the beginning of carriers moving to being mobile data providers entirely. Google's positioned to take advantage of it without having to purchase anything.
posted by odinsdream at 5:58 AM on May 10, 2011

Skype will end up as a freebie on XBox Live.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:48 AM on May 10

I think you jts hit on it. Xbox has a HUGE kinect install base now (Sold approx 8 MILLION between launch in Nov and Jan of this year), and in those kinects are cameras with mics. I could totally see Skype support on Xbox Live.
posted by ShawnString at 5:58 AM on May 10, 2011 [7 favorites]

Why? Why pay $8bn for a company which doesn't have much in the way of technology that Microsoft don't already have or could easily replicate? I suppose patents could be an issue, but they could've tried to licence them instead of paying a ridiculous sum of money for the entire company.

I'm not going to venture an opinion on what Microsoft will do with the quality of the client, but since it's already terrible I'm not going to spend any time worrying that they're going to make it worse.

Of course, the beauty of Skype is that it actually works for most people, regardless of NAT etc. This is very important for home users, particularly in the wake of the total lack of IPv6 rollout by almost everybody - but Windows Live Messenger's video works for me too, and I'm behind a NAT router that wasn't adjusted to make that happen.

Well okay, it works for a bit, then it crashes, but that's not a network issue!
posted by mathw at 5:58 AM on May 10, 2011

If microsoft is paying that much skype, it's because they intend to incorporate it into windows and make an enterprise version.
posted by empath at 5:59 AM on May 10, 2011 [4 favorites]

Of course, the beauty of Skype is that it actually works for most people, regardless of NAT etc.

Yep. I can't tell you how many times I had customers tell me (when I worked at a voip company) that Skype worked for them with no problem, why was ours hard to set up?
posted by empath at 6:00 AM on May 10, 2011

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

I can't think of a single application, technology or platform that has escaped Microsoft once engulfed.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:01 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Are we under the impression that Google does it differently?

One of the reasons for the price, a lot of the pre-announcement chatter suggested, was that Google and Facebook were also interested in Skype.

Microsoft has a whole bunch of enterprise software out there Skype could integrate with. I've certainly worked in offices where people used Outlook for email and calendaring, Office for documents, but still switch to Skype for VOIP calls rather than using Lync, and I suspect many others here have also. And that's before you get onto Dynamics CRM and specialised stuff of that nature.

XBox already has XBox Live (which has not been integrated with Windows Live Messenger), but one thing more and more XBoxen are getting is a webcam through Kinect - and a good, big, panoramic webcam, to boot, wheres previously XBox webcams were limited mainly to people who wanted to play Uno. Whether there's profit there is open to question, but there's certainly possibility - not least possibility to compete with the likes of Cisco for the emerging family-on-sofa videochat space.

Also, mad kudos to Zennstrom. Not many people get to sell their startup at an unbelievable markup twice.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:01 AM on May 10, 2011

I can't think of a single application, technology or platform that has escaped Microsoft once engulfed.

Never heard of the SoftImage suite of software? They even kept developing the IRIX versions, at a time when IRIX was dying.
posted by juiceCake at 6:08 AM on May 10, 2011

Google Talk uses the XMPP protocol. That means, if you don't want to use the in-browser client, you can use a variety of third-party clients that offer the conveniences associated with Skype. Some of them offer end-to-end encryption.

Here's the best documented example:
Voxox | instructions
posted by LogicalDash at 6:09 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

NYT article
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:12 AM on May 10, 2011

So this might push Apple to doing a Windows Facetime client?
posted by bystander at 6:12 AM on May 10, 2011

At present, all the business users are using SIP (RTP) over their VPNs for encrypting voice connections, but sadly almost no commoners are using Zfone (SRTP) for encrypting voice connections.

You'd be surprised at how few people are actually doing this. Most customers installing corporate voip are sending unencrypted traffic to their provider over the public internet. And also, sending internal traffic over VPN isn't that secure, since pretty much anybody with physical access to the network can capture voice traffic.
posted by empath at 6:14 AM on May 10, 2011

Alright, who showd Ballmer the video phone?
posted by furtive at 6:17 AM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

It takes a special kind of company to spend $8 billion on a company that loses money. A company that is already losing billions with its online business. And doesn't care.
posted by tommasz at 6:20 AM on May 10, 2011

MicroSkype.

What? It could happen. In your dreams.
posted by bwg at 6:26 AM on May 10, 2011

Microsoft has something like $48 billion in cash. What else should they do with it?
posted by Green With You at 6:26 AM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Pay a dividend maybe?
posted by bonehead at 6:27 AM on May 10, 2011 [6 favorites]

I remember using NetMeeting to teach a multi-campus class, back in 1999. (nostalgia)
Never used Live Meeting.
Is MS buying a company, again, to fulfill that strategic purpose?
posted by doctornemo at 6:28 AM on May 10, 2011

It takes a special kind of company to spend $8 billion on a company that loses money A company that is already losing billions with its online business. And doesn't care.

Heh. I know a banker here in Tokyo, works for a very big bank. He was telling me about a guy he works with there, said something like "he loses about a million dollars a day for us". This struck me as somewhat absurd, so I said "why don't they fire him?" and my friend answered "anyone else would lose twice as much."

Very funny world.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:29 AM on May 10, 2011 [10 favorites]

and just like that eBay's "mistake" is erased, hopefully this doesn't change Meg Whitman's decision to stay out of politics.

eBay claims "a total return of $1.4 billion on our original investment in Skype".

Though this probably wasn't the route to monetization that they had in mind.
posted by Trurl at 6:29 AM on May 10, 2011

eBay claims "a total return of $1.4 billion on our original investment in Skype".

After MSFT bought it for $8.5B?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 6:31 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

eBay sold Skype years ago.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:32 AM on May 10, 2011

eBay sold Skype years ago.

But retained a 30% stake. So it is part of the investor group led by Silver Lake.
posted by Trurl at 6:35 AM on May 10, 2011

To be clear, the article notes eBay sold 65% of Skype years ago.
posted by Green With You at 6:35 AM on May 10, 2011

If microsoft is paying that much skype, it's because they intend to incorporate it into windows and make an enterprise version.

They already have one. Communicator/Lync. Of course, the problem is that every Communicator installation I've seen has been a walled garden that can't call outside sites, and was hated by users, despite being a fairly decently good product.*

I guess they want to break into Skype's huge installed userbase. I sure hope they're not doing it for the technology. As far as videoconference clients go, it's one of the worst out there.

_{*Apparently, it's fairly successful in workplaces where the average age of the staff is less than 40. I still occasionally get screaming-angry calls from people asking what the hell "Microsoft Commnicate" is, why it's on their computer, and why I'm not already in their office uninstalling it.}
posted by schmod at 6:38 AM on May 10, 2011

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Desqview had released their API freely and it had been incorporated into more software. I suppose now we know: they'd have been bought out by Microsoft.

Doubtful. Microsoft doesn't do [same API as is incorporated into more software] unless they've screwed up so badly that they're practically forced to. Why else would they take so many standards and waste time reinventing them poorly, except that they can then use the result to encourage others to write more Microsoft-only software?

Even when they're forced to implement others' APIs they look for the loopholes. Sure, Windows is POSIX compliant! You can't create threads, windows, sockets, shared memory, or shell scripts, and on most versions you can't do anything else either, but what you *can* do is check off the "I'm pretending not to be saddling the federal government with an expensive vendor lock-in" box on your purchasing requirements form.

My parents brag to their friends that they get to see their baby granddaughter a couple times a week... despite her being a thousand miles away. All thanks to Skype, which runs beautifully on their Windows desktop, my Linux media PC, and their Linux PVR PC. Anyone want to place bets on how long the latter two will be supported?
posted by roystgnr at 6:44 AM on May 10, 2011

But retained a 30% stake. So it is part of the investor group led by Silver Lake.

I think that's a slight misreading - the investor group led by Silver Lake has the majority holding, and is separate from eBay's holding. But if you mean that the set of investors from whom Microsoft is buying Skype includes eBay, though, then yes, absolutely - and at this point that's a nice distinction. Threeway Handshake and others just seemed to be thinking that eBay had handed over the keys to Skype to Microsoft in exchange for all the cash, which isn't how it happened.

eBay kept a stake in the expectation that Skype would be sold on for further profit in the future, very wisely. The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board is probably feeling pretty good about itself, also.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:48 AM on May 10, 2011

> MicroSkype.

Skoft.
posted by Sutekh at 6:51 AM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

I like this deal for Microsoft. I can see a number of implications for me:
I'm a heavy Skype user at home, with family members and friends scattered across the globe. I also own an XBox, but, don't have a Kinect. A Skype client for it will change that.

At work, I run an IT department that started rolling out Lync a few months ago. The response from our users has been phenomenal, large amounts of our internal communications have moved to Lync. If Microsft integrate Skype with Lync to break our users out of the walled garden I can see this being a success.

Remember also that Microsoft own a chunk of facebook. I would expect voice and video capability in facebook chat as a part of this deal along with SkypeOut to your facebook friends who are not online.
posted by IanMorr at 6:53 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

It seems to be a tool of choice for podcasters too, I don't see them moving away from it too quickly.
posted by Artw at 6:54 AM on May 10, 2011

Google Voice would be nice if it were available anywhere other than the US. I have a US number with Skype for doing business with US clients and unlimited calling across North America for something like 7$ a month in total. Given how terrible the Canadian telecommunications market is in terms of gouging its customers, I hope that this acquisition doesn't pull the rug out from under non-US customers. I'd hate to have to go back to paying $30 a month for long-distance phone calls in addition to the $60 I pay for a Blackberry plan with 500 megs of data.
posted by Phire at 6:54 AM on May 10, 2011

Someone at Microsoft took a look at the horrible Skype UI/UX updates and thought, "we can do worse than that."
posted by ryoshu at 6:58 AM on May 10, 2011 [12 favorites]

Sound stopped working on Skype for me this morning, for no apparent reason. I'm going to go ahead and blame it on Microsoft. (Mic works, speakers & headphones work with iTunes...but no luck on Skype.)
posted by EvaDestruction at 6:59 AM on May 10, 2011

> >MicroSkype.

>Skoft.

I sure did.
posted by Revvy at 7:11 AM on May 10, 2011 [6 favorites]

This makes me glad that Skype is but one of the ways I can make calls from my cell phone. ;)
posted by wierdo at 7:17 AM on May 10, 2011

How much of Microsoft's decision was fear-based. Rumors are that Google had only bid $4B, so $8.5 makes MS look a bit panicked.

I give Skype 2-3 more years as a useful program on non- MS platforms, then a steady downhill slide.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:18 AM on May 10, 2011

bubble
posted by archivist at 7:22 AM on May 10, 2011

Like Shawnstring says, Microsoft are going to tie this into Kinect. This is genius. You sit on your sofa, and there's your family on the TV, sitting on their sofa. It's like they're in the same room. This is redefining home telephony.

It's a major convergence play, and if it comes off then the Xbox is a big step closer to owning the space under the TV.

This is not just company X buying company Y. This is huge.
posted by Hogshead at 7:23 AM on May 10, 2011

I look forward to using the renamed Microsoft P2P VoIP Client for Windows Live Communications 7 Home/Pro/Ultimate Edition.
posted by killdevil at 7:24 AM on May 10, 2011 [13 favorites]

This is redefining home telephony.

Newsflash: home telephony is already dead.
posted by mark242 at 7:26 AM on May 10, 2011

This is redefining home telephony.

Newsflash: home telephony is already dead.

Well, whatever you do, y'all, just don't use the word "telephony" around jonmc, OK?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:38 AM on May 10, 2011 [4 favorites]

Rumors are that Google had only bid $4B, so $8.5 makes MS look a bit panicked.

That does seem like a rumor that Google would release.
posted by smackfu at 7:41 AM on May 10, 2011

So far, people either don't want video telephony or, if they do, it's in a very circumscribed format. The sofa-to-sofa videoconferencing... well, it's as plausible as videophones, or two-way video via your mobile, or anything else that isn't Granny in Acapulco seeing toddler in Adelaide. Normal people don't do it.

So I don't think it's about that. I think it's about Microsoft wanting an online brand that doesn't stink, and Ballmer wanting to pull off a coup that saves his skin.
posted by Devonian at 7:43 AM on May 10, 2011

I have found Skype very useful for keeping in touch with friends and family all around the world and, occasionally, for business related things. Maybe Microsoft won't screw it up...

...sorry, I couldn't help myself

*holds sides, wipes tear from face*
posted by ob at 7:49 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Another Microsoft thread full of knee-jerking. Sure would be nice to not have that happen.
posted by palomar at 7:54 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hogshead, I get that's a nice application, but why would they need to buy Skype to do that? Couldn't they just write a client for Skype using the Xbox 360, which Skype would enthusiastically accept, because, you know, more customers?
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:56 AM on May 10, 2011

Google appears to be caught flat-footed.

Which is why Google bought Grandstream years ago, Gizmo a while a go, not charging for termination to the telco network, and is busy snarfing user location data just like the telco carriers, Apple and Microsoft.

Because they are flat footed.

Pull the other leg to see if it too has flat feet.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:58 AM on May 10, 2011

VoIP and SIP are going to have a huge impact on the emerging mobile networks so this makes perfect sense for MSFT and their partnership with Nokia. Also not allowing Google + Android to have it has value.

MSFT has been making some bold moves in the wireless space. Google appears to be caught flat-footed.

Yeah, this probably has more to do with being able to put the brand "Skype" on the back of cell phones.

What's odd about Google: They actually have a video chat client for Gmail: It's just a plugin you download and you can do directly in Gmail. But the odd thing: it doesn't work in Google talk (the Google chat desktop Gmail). Google talk is just awesome as a chat client, totally unobtrusive. And you can talk to anyone who uses Gmail when they log on.

It's great! But it doesn't support their own video chat client!

Aanyway, this is more about cell phones then desktops I think. But Google should be able to do well if they just work on Google talk and put more resources into it.


Skype could work on Kinect, but the problem is you'd just be looking at someone's body, not their face. Kind of lame. Or maybe they can use the fancy kinect software to automatically zoom in on their face. Hmm.. That could be interesting.

How much of Microsoft's decision was fear-based. Rumors are that Google had only bid $4B, so $8.5 makes MS look a bit panicked.

Sometimes I don't get these kinds of bids. Couldn't Google easily spend $4 billion to develop a skype competitor and market the hell out of it? Maybe Microsoft just isn't confident in their ability to build a brand with cash. Just look at the Kin and Bing!. But I think google would have the ability to sell whatever they came up with. And like I said they already have a lot of the tech. Just integrate video into their google talk clients, and done.
posted by delmoi at 8:01 AM on May 10, 2011

Another Microsoft thread full of knee-jerking. Sure would be nice to not have that happen.

Then ask them to stop swinging hammers at our knees.
posted by roystgnr at 8:08 AM on May 10, 2011 [4 favorites]

Skype could work on Kinect, but the problem is you'd just be looking at someone's body, not their face.

Now that all depends on the body. Let's not jump to conclusions here. So who are we talking about? Hmmmmmm?
posted by Splunge at 8:11 AM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'd rather come into this thread and read actual opinions about why this may or may not be a good idea, roystngr. It's cool if you dig threads full of hurf durf level comments like this thread, but I like intelligent discussion. It's more interesting, for sure.
posted by palomar at 8:11 AM on May 10, 2011

Yeah, Google Talk is pretty great, as is Gmail video chat, but it's a pain to talk people into setting those things up. I mean, so many people will fight you and say "I already have email! I don't want a gmail!" Even if they already have a Google account but never realized Gmail was part of it.
posted by mccarty.tim at 8:11 AM on May 10, 2011

Couldn't Google easily spend $4 billion to develop a skype competitor and market the hell out of it?

That's not really the Google way, at least the marketing side. All of their failed products seem like they weren't marketed at all.
posted by smackfu at 8:14 AM on May 10, 2011

How to get Google Voice to work with Asterisk


www.voipuser.org for a 'community' SIP effort.
serweb.iptel.org for one of the 1st

In case you want to conference:
Our vision is that starting a web conference should be as easy as clicking a single metaphorical big blue button. - bigbluebotton.org
posted by rough ashlar at 8:15 AM on May 10, 2011

I can't think of a single application, technology or platform that has escaped Microsoft once engulfed.

Excel? PowerPoint?

As I've pointed out to my students, AJAX is driven entirely by XHR, which originated in IE 5.

Blind squirrels do find acorns.
posted by dw at 8:19 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Could someone please explain what's so horrible about the version 5 update? I haven't updated yet.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 8:21 AM on May 10, 2011

I like Skype. It is very reliable. Expensive compared to home build VOIP services (VOIP.MS, Terrasip.COM) but much more reliable. Try using VOIP in Brazil...

I don't know if Skype is worth 8 Billion but it is easier to buy the customers than to build it from scratch. Since MS holds a stake in Facebook it may be build in into Facebook in the future and this may make sense.

Unfortunately MS may trash the Linux version. Google trashed the gizmo5 client too after they bought it.
posted by yoyo_nyc at 8:22 AM on May 10, 2011

Or maybe they can use the fancy kinect software to automatically zoom in on their face. Hmm.. That could be interesting.
It already does this. You can do Kinect chat of some kind but I've never connected. But it shows you how you look and it does zoom in and follow you.
posted by Brainy at 8:22 AM on May 10, 2011

Couldn't Google easily spend $4 billion to develop a skype competitor and market the hell out of it?
Google already has Voice. But they don't have nearly the market that Skype does. They'd be buying customers, not product.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:23 AM on May 10, 2011

Microsoft bought Skype for three reasons:
1. Name recognition
2. Windows Phone
3. Kinect

It seems like MSFT overpaid. OTOH, Skype is far and away the best OS-independent video product out there, and were it a little better on iOS (and less encumbered by Apple/AT&T) it'd be better than Facetime. It'd probably cost them $8B to build, launch, re-launch, re-build, and eventually cancel whatever Skype competitor they could manage to throw together.

Skype is bandwidth intensive, though. In my office we've been ordered to stop using Skype and use WebEx instead, but everyone hates WebEx because it's slow, balky, and sucks at sharing desktops with video at the same time.

If Microsoft is smart they'll leave Skype alone. But this is Microsoft, and the boatload of MSFT product managers will arrive soon enough to lead Skype six different ways to oblivion.
posted by dw at 8:26 AM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Huh. A Microsoft acquisition that I'm not totally offended by. For some reason, I think this might work out.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:37 AM on May 10, 2011

We use Skype around our office when we do television interviews around the country it has made our lives so much easier. No more traveling into Boston to go to the TV studio we can do it right from the office. I think Microsoft as a great idea of how they can integrate this into all areas of the company through phone, Windows, MSN, Xbox. I don't think that Microsoft bought it because they are "scared" I think they understand how Skype can benefit them and were willing to put the money. I also don't think that Microsoft is going to "fuck up" or turn Skype into "shit", over the past few years Microsoft has put out some quality products and has been improving recently.
posted by lilkeith07 at 8:40 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Google appears to be caught flat-footed.

Google made an offer, Microsoft outbid them by a rather ridiculous margin. Presumably Google doesn't think Skype was worth what Microsoft offered. I tend to think they're correct; Microsoft just paid eight billion for a company that's already been a billion-plus-dollar moneypit, and has been losing money since cut loose on its own. While the customer base is clearly worth something, I'm not sure it's worth that.

And in terms of users, insofar as every user of Gmail is kinda-sorta a user of Google Voice as well -- a potential user, anyway -- Google probably has more users than Skype. I have a tab open with Gmail in it right now, and could if I wanted to make a phone call or voice/video chat with a half-dozen people. I don't have Skype open.

That said, I don't use either one very much, and I've always questioned whether the market for videoteleconferencing is really as big as its proponents think it is. In the past decade I've actually seen many people move away from voice telephony even as it has gotten much cheaper, in favor of text based services; both asynchronous ones like SMS and email, and interactive, synchronous ones like instant messaging. Despite the fact that telephony has literally never been cheaper than it is today, I suspect that my father spent more time on the phone than I do, despite the usurious rates he must have paid (or someone must have paid on his behalf) to Ma Bell and AT&T for him to do so.

My gut feeling is that the future will be more about people's applications and digital agents 'talking' to each other than using 2001-esque videophones (whether standalone or on a PC); or that, if people do use a video chat service, it'll be preceded by a whole lot of communication between scheduling programs, calendars, address books, status updates, text messages, etc. Google seems to get that sort of heavily-mediated communication better than Microsoft does.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:41 AM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

What other crappy software can we get for $7 Billion? Quicken? Desqview?

Hey you leave Desqview alone! Desqview was AWESOME! Kick-ass multitasking on a 386 with 4MB of RAM, I could run my WWIV BBS and play Lemmings at the SAME TIME, unencumbered by Windows 3.0's retardiculous GUI. And let us not forget how much better QEMM was than the awful, misbegotten MEMMAKER.

In some alternate universe, Desqview won out over Windows, and Columbia, MO is the center for OS development in America.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:43 AM on May 10, 2011 [3 favorites]

over the past few years Microsoft has put out some quality products and has been improving recently.

lol
posted by entropicamericana at 8:44 AM on May 10, 2011

(I am, of course, speaking of Desqview 386, not the Desqview/X which came later, and I think was some kind of weird linux clone)
posted by Afroblanco at 8:47 AM on May 10, 2011

Skype could work on Kinect, but the problem is you'd just be looking at someone's body, not their face. Kind of lame. Or maybe they can use the fancy kinect software to automatically zoom in on their face

Full-body Skype enabled avatars.
Kinectimals with video chat.

Hell, my logitech camera can already do faces (on Windows, naturally, my Linux machines are out of luck). It's not such a big leap to whole bodies.

On the plus side, I suppose the grandparents will have actually moved physically closer to the grandchild before Microsoft gets around to orphaning the Linux client.
posted by madajb at 8:50 AM on May 10, 2011

They are just going to replace Microsoft Office 2007 Communicator with skype.

I think Communicator has 0 buy in. It appeared on my work pc, then dissapeared a few months later, I shudder to think what we spent on that rollout.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:50 AM on May 10, 2011

Seconding entropicamericana - if you're thinking of inventing a time machine and going back in time to buy a PC with Windows Vista pre-installed, don't. Spend the time with your kids, instead. Or kill Hitler as a baby. Something else.

Full-body Skype enabled avatars.
Kinectimals with video chat.

Between this and the brain-powered cat ears, I'm starting to think that furries are pretty much setting the technology agenda right now.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:02 AM on May 10, 2011

If they can make Skype into a longterm pillar of their Office suite, à la Excel and Powerpoint, then it was probably worth it. Everything else (Kinect, Windows Phone) is just gravy.
posted by 2bucksplus at 9:03 AM on May 10, 2011

they deserve each other.
posted by krautland at 9:17 AM on May 10, 2011

Please don't f*** it up, Microsoft!
posted by Lynsey at 9:27 AM on May 10, 2011

Between this and the brain-powered cat ears, I'm starting to think that furries are pretty much setting the technology agenda right now.

They control the horizontal.
They control the vertical.
They are the faceless, the nameless, the opposable-thumbless.
posted by madajb at 9:29 AM on May 10, 2011

They are just going to replace Microsoft Office 2007 Communicator with skype.

The did that already
posted by mattr at 9:36 AM on May 10, 2011

The did that already

Wow never seen that product before. Think they are going rebrand Lync , leave on the side of the road, maybe they will push Lync as the "enterprise" Skype.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:43 AM on May 10, 2011

In some alternate universe, Desqview won out over Windows, and Columbia, MO is the center for OS development in America.

Not often I see my hometown mentioned on Metafilter :)
posted by bayani at 10:12 AM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, surprise, Mini-MSFT isn't happy.

MS has definitely had some decent products come out lately, but man, does their acquisition track record kind of stink. Danger would seem to be the one that sticks out here -- high profile, passionate user base, killed by bad product launches from Microsoft...
posted by curse at 10:38 AM on May 10, 2011

I look forward to using the renamed Microsoft P2P VoIP Client for Windows Live Communications 7 Home/Pro/Ultimate Edition.
posted by killdevil at 7:24 AM on May 10

Yushityu 2007Microsoft 2011 Mimetic-Resolution-Cartridge-View-Motherboard-Easy-To-Install-Upgrade For Infernatron/InterLace TP Systems For Home, Office, Or Mobile
posted by kcds at 10:47 AM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Not to worry: I'm sure MicroSoft will make Skype every bit as secure as IE and Outlook.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:53 AM on May 10, 2011

Did Microsoft overpay for Skype? Hell yes — by $4.5 billion

In fact, GigaOm’s Om Malik goes even further, suggesting that Google wasn’t that serious either. “I also don’t believe that Facebook and Google were serious buyers”, he says, citing the existence of Google Voice. “In essence, I feel that Microsoft was bidding against itself.”
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:07 AM on May 10, 2011

POTS (analog landlines), mobile voice, and proprietary VOIP services should be replaced by a nationalized SIP directory, and other countries should follow suit. This would make *all* voice calls practically free, and the cost for governments to support this is crazy-cheap: it’s basically DNS for phone calls.
I’ve been waiting *fifteen years* for the ball to get rolling! This stuff is so easy to implement; I can only assume that the telcos & wireless phone carriers have managed to distract us into continuing to pour money into them.
Skype is a distraction.
posted by davel at 11:13 AM on May 10, 2011 [4 favorites]

Not to worry: I'm sure MicroSoft will make Skype every bit as secure as IE and Outlook.

And on some blog, a post is being made about how this is backed by [x government body] so that the communications of Skype can now be snooped on.

replaced by a nationalized SIP directory,

upthread I mentioned 2. Got a preferred one?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:17 AM on May 10, 2011

replaced by a nationalized SIP directory,

upthread I mentioned 2. Got a preferred one?

None, because I was an early adopter, and nothing ever gained traction, so I got fed up.
Mostly I use email, and my mobile phone only when a voice call is necessary.
I also use any free VOIP service that anyone asks me to use, if I’m motivated enough to go through the hassle. I’m VOIP agnostic (a VOIP slut?).
posted by davel at 11:31 AM on May 10, 2011

The last one I used was SIPphone, which was renamed Gizmo5, which was bought & crushed by Google.
See why I got fed up?
posted by davel at 11:37 AM on May 10, 2011

None, because I was an early adopter, and nothing ever gained traction, so I got fed up.

Bayone, OpenLogger (who then dumped the OS I was using), the software upgrade of the week club with the ethernet VOIP device that with the 2007 firmware doesn't work right with Java 1.4 on their website or the current 1.6 but does work with the last 1.4 which shipped (that was a 6 hour CF to change 5 settings in a web interface. Java run everywhere - HA!)

I'm sure Harry Newton has stories that would curl ones nosehairs - but things are better today with VoIP than 10 years ago.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:39 AM on May 10, 2011

I’ve been waiting *fifteen years* for the ball to get rolling! This stuff is so easy to implement; I can only assume that the telcos & wireless phone carriers have managed to distract us into continuing to pour money into them.

Ha, I'd like to see the day Carlos Slim opens up Mexico's telephone traffic. You can call a cell phone in Beijing for less than a penny per minute, but any mobile number in Mexico costs at least 6 cents/min.

Carlos Slim makes any wannabe monopolist in the US look like John Sherman.
posted by kmz at 11:58 AM on May 10, 2011 [3 favorites]

Bayone, OpenLogger (who then dumped the OS I was using), the software upgrade of the week club with the ethernet VOIP device that with the 2007 firmware doesn't work right with Java 1.4 on their website or the current 1.6 but does work with the last 1.4 which shipped (that was a 6 hour CF to change 5 settings in a web interface. Java run everywhere - HA!)

I’m not interested in running my own VOIP server any more than I’m interested in running my own mail server. That would be a bunch of hassle with almost no gain, and certainly is irrelevant to 99.5% of the population.
As an analogy: I pay Google $50/year to handle my mail spectacularly well. If I did it myself it wouldn't be *nearly* as nice or reliable, and would cost me hours of hassle.
And hacking hardware to make a VOIP call? It’s 2011 now, and what you’re talking about is an obscure nerd fetish. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just irrelevant to the problem of making voice calls both reliable and virtually free, for everyone in the world.
posted by davel at 11:58 AM on May 10, 2011

POTS (analog landlines), mobile voice, and proprietary VOIP services should be replaced by a nationalized SIP directory, and other countries should follow suit.

My POTS is rock-solid. Works everytime I pick up the phone, costs essentially nothing, and gives me great call quality.
Why would I give that up for the dubious benefits of horribly compressed audio, dependence on a finicky mobile signal or reliance on an ISP that manages (sometimes) to make 3 nines?

In short, POTS just works, please don't muck with it.
posted by madajb at 12:01 PM on May 10, 2011

And hacking hardware to make a VOIP call?

Making changes on a web page is "hardware hacking" ?

It’s 2011 now, and what you’re talking about is an obscure nerd fetish.

Or people who get paid to interface actual working phone systems with VoIP.

I pay Google $50/year to handle my mail spectacularly well.

I don't know anyone who's paying Google - do the paid customers avoid having to wait 30-40+ minutes to get email in/out of their system?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:03 PM on May 10, 2011

In short, POTS just works, please don't muck with it.

While your POTS is tarriffed, odds are the back end is some form of packetized service.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:05 PM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

VoIP and SIP are going to have a huge impact on the emerging mobile networks so this makes perfect sense for MSFT and their partnership with Nokia. Also not allowing Google + Android to have it has value.

MSFT has been making some bold moves in the wireless space. Google appears to be caught flat-footed.

In the parallel universe in which Google don't have their own readily available video-calling solution based on standard protocols, sure, maybe you're right. But in this universe, the main thing Google doesn't have is a bunch of name recognition around people recognising they could use Google video calling as easily as Skype (which is important, but I doubt it's 8 billion important), and pervasive multiplatform support, which isn't that hard a fix when you've built on open standards and anyone can join in the fun.
posted by rodgerd at 12:06 PM on May 10, 2011

POTS (analog landlines), mobile voice, and proprietary VOIP services should be replaced by a nationalized SIP directory, and other countries should follow suit.

Maybe you should ask people in, say, Chrischurch, how keen they are on replacing analogue landlines. You know, the service that kept working after a major quake while power and internet access failed.
posted by rodgerd at 12:08 PM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

My POTS is rock-solid. Works everytime I pick up the phone, costs essentially nothing, and gives me great call quality.
Why would I give that up for the dubious benefits of horribly compressed audio, dependence on a finicky mobile signal or reliance on an ISP that manages (sometimes) to make 3 nines?

OTOH, my cable phone service is indistinguishable from POTS, is half the price, and is almost certainly VOIP behind the scenese.
posted by smackfu at 12:08 PM on May 10, 2011

pervasive multiplatform support, which isn't that hard a fix when you've built on open standards and anyone can join in the fun.

And Google's solution isn't playing games like Skype where your use of the software means you are handling other people's traffic.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:09 PM on May 10, 2011

Hey, look at the bright side.
The rumors I was reading the other day was that facebook would buy Skype.
In comparison, this doesn't seem quite as bad. Maybe...
posted by whatzit at 12:14 PM on May 10, 2011

Maybe you should ask people in, say, Chrischurch, how keen they are on replacing analogue landlines.

Sure, but if people had small emergency UPSes attached to VOIP devices at home, then VOIP would be only a little less reliable than POTS. Emergency VOIP devices with built-in batteries could be pretty cheap to manufacture. Replacing POTS isn’t that hard.
posted by davel at 12:14 PM on May 10, 2011

In any case, I don’t have a problem with POTS staying around, I just think it’s stupidly expensive to use.
posted by davel at 12:19 PM on May 10, 2011

I don't know anyone who's paying Google.

Sure — their free service is more than good enough for at least 95% of people.
posted by davel at 12:20 PM on May 10, 2011

Maybe you should ask people in, say, Chrischurch, how keen they are on replacing analogue landlines.

There's no particularly good reason that power should fail and telephone service should stay up.
posted by smackfu at 12:22 PM on May 10, 2011

Or people who get paid to interface actual working phone systems with VoIP.

Sorry, I didn’t realize you were in the industry.
posted by davel at 12:31 PM on May 10, 2011

There's no particularly good reason that power should fail and telephone service should stay up.

Are you injured in the brain? Because this sounds like the sort of brain-injured nerd response I hear from people whose technofetishism leaves them entirely unconnected with reality, like being able to call emergency services.

Anyway, it shows how far Microsoft have declined under Ballmer. In the Gates Microsoft years, they would not have bought Skype.

Several years ago they would have already developed a Skype competitor, which would be clunky at first release, but ship standard with Windows, X-Boxes, Zunes, and WinMo devices. It would use your Windows OneID (which ties together your X-Box live, Hotmail, and Zune Marketplace accounts) to let you call anyone else with a Microsoft Phone. It would probably be based on open standards enough to let non-Microsoft tools work as slaves of the MS infrastructure, but, like Active Directory, have enough Secret Sauce that it would be really hard to inter-operate except on terms favourable to Microsoft.

People would deride version 1 as hopelessly inferior to Skype, but shipping standard, setup with any Microsoft device you own automatically, and being in your living room with your X-Box would make it increasingly pervasive. Eventually by version 3 or 4 it would be useful, and Skype would go broke or be sold for a pittance to another also-ran Microsoft competitor.

The fact so much of this now sounds beyond Microsoft - like tying their various properties together to make them easy enough to use people can't be bothered looking for alternatives - shows what a shit job Ballmer has done. If I was a Microsoft shareholder I'd want him gone.
posted by rodgerd at 1:38 PM on May 10, 2011

There's no particularly good reason that power should fail and telephone service should stay up.

Are you injured in the brain? Because this sounds like the sort of brain-injured nerd response

rodgerd - do explain how a POTS line works without electrical power.

You are the one claiming 'brain injury' - so explain how the POTS works without electrical power.

In the Gates Microsoft years, they would not have bought Skype.

Right, because what Gates woullda done is screw 'em out of the company or product via contracts.

Several years ago they would have already developed a Skype competitor,

H.323?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:53 PM on May 10, 2011

But in this universe, the main thing Google doesn't have is a bunch of name recognition around people recognising they could use Google video calling as easily as Skype (which is important, but I doubt it's 8 billion important)

You know who I want to video call? My parents. I want to video call my parents and put their granddaughter on the camera. That's it. And I'm not a rarity in that respect.

Do you know how long it took me to both convince and teach my parents to use Skype?
posted by gurple at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2011

I wonder how much the DOJ influence at Microsoft could account for this. Instead of abusing their monopoly and forcing substandard software on their customers, they had to pay Skype.

It could be Ballmer's fault too, because he certainly doesn't seem to have the right type of vision or personality to be CEO, but Ballmer isn't enough to explain fearless environment that startups now operate in.
and for goodness' sake people, telephone service during emergency situations like power failure is exactly how it should work! Packet switched networks are wondrous, but a lot of thought and effort has gone into POTS failure modes and POTS simply can not be abandoned until packet switching's emergency performance is as good or better. Such rash and thoughtless transitions are what ends up costing people's lives.
posted by Llama-Lime at 2:01 PM on May 10, 2011

POTS carries signal and power on the same line. It's quite common for POTS to continue to work just fine during a general power outage.
posted by Uncle Ira at 2:02 PM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

POTS carries signal and power on the same line. It's quite common for POTS to continue to work just fine during a general power outage.

I keep an old, simple POTS phone set in a drawer or just this purpose. If the power goes out, the cordless phones all go with it. But I can plug in the $5 phone and it works just fine.
posted by COD at 2:07 PM on May 10, 2011

It's quite common for POTS to continue to work just fine during a general power outage.*

But the claim on the table is without power. And I wanna know how a telephone works without power.

Anyone who understands the old Bellcore standards (and has some glass nickel iron bellcore batteries) understand the -48VDC system that used to be used. And even in the cost cutting of today, when AC power goes out, the cable provider isn't about, but lashed to a wooden pole is a gasoline generator running up to the telephone grey box on the pole.


*Unless its a princess phone.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:14 PM on May 10, 2011

Indeed. In my lifespan (40+ yrs), through many many power outages, I have never seen POTS fail. In fact, I think I have been unable to use my phone only every a few times (outside of not paying), and it was inevitably correctly almost immediately.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:16 PM on May 10, 2011

Oh, I see now, rough ashlar. You choose to misinterpret the term "without power" from what was obviously meant in order to have an argument. Well then, your right, so can we return to debating the actual merits of POTS vrs VoIP instead of the semantics of what "without power" might mean?
posted by Bovine Love at 2:22 PM on May 10, 2011

I have never seen POTS fail

And that is part of the old bellcore obsession with power backup and being a regulated/tarriffed monopoly.

Most IP providers don't bother with much more backup beyond an APC 250 - thus when the power outage is over a few minutes its over.

Hence the difference you are seeing.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:26 PM on May 10, 2011

the term "without power" from what was obviously meant

Question:

Where, exactly, do you thing the day to day electrical power consumed at most telephone firms and consumed at most VoIP shops come from?
posted by rough ashlar at 2:28 PM on May 10, 2011

POTS (analog landlines), mobile voice, and proprietary VOIP services should be replaced by a nationalized SIP directory, and other countries should follow suit. This would make *all* voice calls practically free, and the cost for governments to support this is crazy-cheap: it’s basically DNS for phone calls.
I’ve been waiting *fifteen years* for the ball to get rolling! This stuff is so easy to implement; I can only assume that the telcos & wireless phone carriers have managed to distract us into continuing to pour money into them.

Trust me, as someone who has been doing voip for 4-5 years now, first for a hosted provider, and now for an actual telecom, it's neither free nor easy to get sip working reliably, and net neutrality laws are only going to make it harder.
posted by empath at 2:32 PM on May 10, 2011

Where, exactly, do you thing the day to day electrical power consumed at most telephone firms and consumed at most VoIP shops come from?

You're being deliberately obtuse. Telecoms have huge banks of batteries and diesel fuel generators in the case of a power outage. We'll keep running even if power is out for days. POTS systems will continue to run, even if standard power lines are no longer working. This is an extremely common occurrence.
posted by empath at 2:45 PM on May 10, 2011

In some alternate universe, Desqview won out over Windows, and Columbia, MO is the center for OS development in America.

Not often I see my hometown mentioned on Metafilter :)

It was also my home for a time. At one time, it was also home to Datastorm (who made Procomm Plus) and Quarterdeck (who bought Datastorm and then relocated their entire operation to COMO). Funny story, the company where I did my internship, my mentor actually got his start writing scripts in the Procomm Plus scripting language. Apparently, the scripting interface was a big selling point for PCPlus. I guess it was sort of the Greasemonkey of its day.

I still like to imagine an alternate universe where COMO became a center of tech innovation instead of Redmond. That would be kinda awesome.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:54 PM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Where, exactly, do you thing the day to day electrical power consumed at most telephone firms and consumed at most VoIP shops come from?

Unless you're dealing with a nuclear war or a planetary-sized asteroid, I'd bet good money that any power problems you're going to have will be localized to a very small area. Just because your power is out doesn't mean everyone's power is out.

Nine times out of ten when power goes out is because of heavy winds or heavy snow combined with falling branches. I've had plenty of occasions where my power has been out but the POTS phone with its phantom voltage kept working A-O.K.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:11 PM on May 10, 2011

Ballmer to Skype Fans: You Can Trust Us.

Comedy gold. So how do you know that you can trust them? Well, according to Ballmer, this is how:

"Both executives sought to reassure Skype customers who might be worried about Microsoft’s ability and willingness to support the multiplatform software, which is available for Windows, OS X and Linux PCs; Android, BlackBerry and iOS smartphones; and even televisions.

“We’re one of the few companies that has actually has a track record of doing this,” said Ballmer, pointing to the company’s Mac support over the years. “Fundamental to the value proposition of communications is being able to reach everybody, whether they happen to be on your devices or not.”

Oh Heavens! We're safe! C'mon mac users, look what great support MSFT has given you over the years, Internet Explorer for Mac is still going strong, and Office is always at least at parity on Mac vs Windows! And so on. This is the very proof that they'll take good care of you, OS X users, in their own words!

And Linux, ha! Oh this is funny.

Yes, I do use Skype for international calls. There are people who don't own x gear, or don't use Gmail, or are generally tech resistant, and it's been a huge chore to entrain them on at least Skype and now they're holding onto it with a death-grip. Good luck trying to transition them to something else, once MSFT borks up the works. Thanks, Ballmer, we're very reassured.

If you use OS X or Linux or anything but Windows, it's time to start looking for alternatives, because sooner or later, you'll have to tackle this anyway.
posted by VikingSword at 3:12 PM on May 10, 2011

Procomm Plus

Woah, nostalgia! I used to use PC Plus all the time. Back in the good ol' days when you had to remember to add ANSI.SYS in your config.sys file if you wanted to be able to view BBSs in full 16-colors (EGA). Good times, good times.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:19 PM on May 10, 2011

Telecoms have huge banks of batteries and diesel fuel generators in the case of a power outage. We'll keep running even if power is out for days. POTS systems will continue to run, even if standard power lines are no longer working. This is an extremely common occurrence.

And what do most ISPs have, for the sake of comparison?

What are the FCC implications if the ISP lacks such?

And finally - batteries and diesel fuel generators are "power". Having them working
means you will not be "without power".
posted by rough ashlar at 3:28 PM on May 10, 2011

Skype is one of the few technologies my parents use but I don't. They use it to talk to far-flung relatives.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 3:30 PM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

And what do most ISPs have, for the sake of comparison?

Well, since I work for an ISP as well as a telecom, I can confirm that we have the same stuff at our switch sites, but we don't generally have them at the COs, at least not ones that will last very long. Your internet connection will always go down when the power is out locally, even if you have a UPS.

You can, however, power your telephone off of the power from your POTS connection alone.

And finally - batteries and diesel fuel generators are "power". Having them working
means you will not be "without power".

Again, you are being obtuse. When people say 'without power', they mean without power from their local power company -- the power that runs your TV and your refrigerator. POTS phones run on an entirely separate power system. If you have a blackout, if nothing else in your home is working. Your phone will still work. Your computer and your internet will not.
posted by empath at 3:46 PM on May 10, 2011

While your POTS is tarriffed, odds are the back end is some form of packetized service.

No doubt. Still works better than every sip client I've ever tried and, more importantly, it requires me to do nothing other than plug in a phone I can buy just about anywhere, including a grocery store.
posted by madajb at 3:47 PM on May 10, 2011

And finally - batteries and diesel fuel generators are "power". Having them working
means you will not be "without power".

This is a silly derail. If there is power at the telephone exchange, and the line is unbroken, a wired handset will continue to be powered if local power is down, because the line carries power and signal. Although of course if you have a cordless handset it will not be able to transmit signal between the base station and the handset, so you need an old-fashioned corded handset in reserve or an emergency power source.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:50 PM on May 10, 2011

OTOH, my cable phone service is indistinguishable from POTS, is half the price, and is almost certainly VOIP behind the scenese.

Your provider is much more competent than mine, apparently.
posted by madajb at 3:51 PM on May 10, 2011

In short, POTS just works, please don't muck with it.

The problem is that POTS' "carrier grade" reliability is expensive. The backup batteries at the local office, capable of driving not only their own headend equipment but all the terminal equipment in your house, the insane levels of redundancy and testing, the general massively conservative attitude ... all of that is expensive.

It was an expense that was hidden in the local line fee, spread out to everyone, back when everyone had a landline. And insofar as the telcos still require you to have a landline in order to get any sort of other service, it still is.

But that's all going away. If everyone else on the block has cable or uses some sort of wireless service, then suddenly you're stuck bearing the cost of all that bombproof "five nines" infrastructure. And I guarantee you that most people are not going to be able to afford it. Certain customers -- the government, military, maybe hospitals and some very rich businesses -- may care enough to pay for that sort of thing, but they'll probably get the reliability in other ways (through their own backup infrastructure).

Put bluntly, the market never would have delivered "five nines." That was a product of a monopoly -- one of the positive contributions, like Bell Labs -- but it's not something that probably would have emerged had people had an option along the way. I suspect that given a choice between a $20/mo POTS line that gets five nines and another one for $15 that only gets three, enough people would choose the cheaper option that the better one wouldn't be viable. And that's sorta where we're going as the industry becomes more and more exposed to the market, although the transition is being obscured by the transition from analog POTS to digital wireline services and cellular service.

tl;dr: Enjoy POTS while it lasts, as it's probably not long for this world, and replacements will beat it on bandwidth and features but not on reliability.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:01 PM on May 10, 2011 [5 favorites]

Sutekh: "> MicroSkype.

Skoft."

I think that belongs in this thread.
posted by bwg at 6:05 PM on May 10, 2011

...nooooooooo!




.
posted by simulacra at 6:55 PM on May 10, 2011

Pace yourself Microsoft. Save some dough for Farmville.
posted by mazola at 7:01 PM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

“We’re one of the few companies that has actually has a track record of doing this,” said Ballmer, pointing to the company’s Mac support over the years.

I wonder if he's heard of Halo.
posted by Revvy at 7:04 PM on May 10, 2011

Skype is the go-to tech for small bunches of people in the movie biz who need to conference in an informal way. For example, if I need to confab with an indie producer or director, nine times out of ten it will be Skype. I used to think it was a gong show, since someone (usually me) was always dropping out since I'm on rural internet.

But then recently on studio conference calls I've also had horrible problems. Someone's always on a cellphone or one of those godawful conference phones that look like a starfish. Worst of all is when they use one of the cheapskate conferencing services that Canadian telcoms won't connect to because of the termination fees. You dial in at the appointed time only to get the dreaded 'we won't connect you to his number, dumbass' messages, followed by complete panic.

I would guess that 8/10 of the people I skype with also have iChat but for some reason Skype is the lowest common denominator. We'll see how much longer that lasts.
posted by unSane at 7:14 PM on May 10, 2011

Uh oh...
posted by scalefree at 8:29 PM on May 10, 2011 [5 favorites]

If there is power at the telephone exchange, and the line is unbroken, a wired handset will continue to be powered if local power is down, because the line carries power and signal.
--running order squabble

The telephone exchange doesn't even have to have power, because they have enormous room-size back-up batteries. rough ashlar mentioned "The -48VDC system that used to be used" It still is used. Even the modern IP Ethernet routers at the telephone office are run off of -48v. (I design these things).

Don't believe me? Assuming you have copper telephone wires going to your place, and you have access to the telephone box where the wires come in: open it up, put two fingers of one hand on the screws holding the red and green wires, then have someone call you. Actually, DON'T DO THIS. You'll get a heck of a shock from the -48v driving the ringers on your telephones. (How do I know this? Don't ask).

On the other hand, in Katrina disaster, cell phone networks were more reliable than the POTS wired phone system. Wireless connections are a lot harder to blow down in a storm ;) And cell towers can be brought in on trucks, which several companies did.
posted by eye of newt at 10:52 PM on May 10, 2011

I should change my methodology of researching after I post. When the telephone rings, the -48v is shut off and an even higher AC voltage is put on the line to ring the phone.
posted by eye of newt at 11:14 PM on May 10, 2011

Got Skype hardware here. The husband travels for work all the time, and we use Skype. Except it's funny, really. He just got an iPad2, and we just used Facetime for our first time, this week. LOL!

We used to have a Skype-in phone number, but we had an extremely sweet deal, so Skype just ignored our renewal one time, and poof, we had to sign-up as new, and the deal was not even close. Bummer, really. We just gave up on it.
posted by Goofyy at 2:05 AM on May 11, 2011

The message, I think, being don't for the love of Heaven put two fingers on the red and green wires.

On the other hand, in Katrina disaster, cell phone networks were more reliable than the POTS wired phone system. Wireless connections are a lot harder to blow down in a storm ;) And cell towers can be brought in on trucks, which several companies did.

Absolutely - and one possible endgame is to have a lot of small masts with cheap, low-power repeaters, rechargable batteries and solar cells/local microgenerators, and just blanket an area with them - at which point you have a redundant mesh to get mobile signal onto the wired IP backbone. But yes, these huge networks of copper the early-developing nations have is sort of a gift and a curse...
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:56 AM on May 11, 2011

tl;dr: Enjoy POTS while it lasts, as it's probably not long for this world, and replacements will beat it on bandwidth and features but not on reliability.

ahhhh, progress.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:22 AM on May 11, 2011

tl;dr: Enjoy POTS while it lasts, as it's probably not long for this world, and replacements will beat it on bandwidth and features but not on reliability.

It's all about priorities, I suppose.

I used to think that people wouldn't pay more for crap telephone service and crappier call quality, but the cell phone companies sure proved me wrong on that one!
posted by madajb at 9:45 AM on May 11, 2011

I think the lesson is that people are willing to pay more, get worse quality and reliability (dropouts, etc.) in return for a particularly highly-valued feature; in the case of cell phones, it's mobility.

I'm not sure I would have predicted that, so I'm not saying it's necessarily obvious, but it's clear in retrospect that's what the (US) market has demanded.

Presumably there's some minimum amount of quality and reliability below which consumers will take notice and it would become a point of competition between providers (and it did, for a while, although I haven't seen any cellcos advertising based on dropped calls this season), but it's a lot lower than that provided by POTS.

In chatting with my coworkers, several of them pointed out that a switch to a fully-packetized network for cell phones might allow consumers to strike their own balance between quality, reliability, and cost; if you paid per MB and were able to control the codec's bandwidth and the transmission redundancy, you might be able to balance one against the other as it suits you. But that will probably require 4G/LTE at least, plus a recognition by the cellcos that they're nothing but bit-movers, so it's probably a few years away.
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:33 PM on May 11, 2011