Microsoft Seeing Skype on the Side?

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15271' target='_blank'>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15271</a><br /><br /></div>We've <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26647">talked a lot about Skype</a> recently. Well the Inquirer has a brief article up speculating that Skype may be about to sell out to Microsoft. They point to <a href="http://www.newswireless.net/articles/040407-tvp.html">this article</a> giving more thoughts on the matter: "You'll have noticed that Microsoft has toned down the hype on its Smartphone recently. No, it hasn't canned the project! - but the enthusiasm... what happened to that? The answer may lie in one word: Skype." <br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/header_logo_small.gif" /><br /><br />"A clue, say the gossips: ask where Skype's UK operation is based. The answer: Thames Valley Park. Is that the same TVP where Microsoft UK has its headquarters?" Rumours, pure rumours of course. But what if they were true? Is it a good thing that MS often buys the best technologies &amp; companies and builds them into their next OSs? It's certainly true that VoIP has gathered a lot of support recently, even building some excitement amongst consumers. How would you like to see MS include VoIP in the next desktop and PPC release? Thoughts?

[Falstaff]

I don't know if this is a good thing for Skype. When MS goes and buys a software company so that it can incorparate its products into Windows, sometimes it works, other times not. You also hav to wonder, if they buy Skype, is it really because they are interested in used the program, or because they are trying to eliminate a competitor to MSN Messenger. If they just took the Skype backend stuff and combined that with MSN messenger to improve its voice ability, that would be awful. I hate MSN messenger, the only reason I have an account is because Gaim can access MSN. I like seeing Skype as an independent company, especially with the innovative and talented guys that made it.

[carrigaline]

Skype is made by the people behind Kazaa and uses your pc as a "supernode", drawing down your system's capacity to maintain their network. Anything linked to Kazaa is risky to me - spyware, viruses - you never know what else. I am not comfortable with having that on my pc or ppc under it's current form and ownership.....maybe MS could bring out something equivalent.

[Zack Mahdavi]

Skype is made by the people behind Kazaa and uses your pc as a "supernode", drawing down your system's capacity to maintain their network. Anything linked to Kazaa is risky to me - spyware, viruses - you never know what else. I am not comfortable with having that on my pc or ppc under it's current form and ownership.....maybe MS could bring out something equivalent.

Really? Interesting? Do you have a link to an article or anything?

[bbarker]

The last discussion (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26647) about Skype had me scratching my head and wondering, what in the world is Skype? As I read through that previous thread, it seemed everyone on PPPT except me knew what Skype was, but I'd never heard of it. Eventually I figured it out.

This will be interesting to watch.

[joelevi]

Voice over IP (VoIP) is great... But it has some technological hurdles...

Firstly, the phone is much easier to use than a computer based VoIP solution. Pick it up, dial a number, and you're connected (maybe just to voicemail, but connected nonetheless). Solution? A Vonage-esque melding of the two: easy of POTS use, power of VoIP.

Secondly, in a word: bandwidth. For a "good" VoIP connection you really need at least 128kbps (256 prefered) syncronous (per two-sided conversation). That's not really a big deal for homes (cable, DSL, fixed wireless, etc.), where it is a big deal is with latency. You need a snappy response time in addition to a fat pipe, as it were. This is more difficult in mobile deployments due simply to the nature of coverage. You're 90%(-ish) covered on University Campuses (campi?), at home, and at work, maybe at the city park, if you're lucky. But you're out of luck in your car, or hiking, or at the cafe', or... etc. Even if you've got the pipe, you may not have the low-latencies needed for VoIP.

How do you resolve that? Well, one way is how Skype is approaching it, inovative CODECs. Unfortunately, they're proprietary.

Proprietary, for practical purposes, means they're either narrowly deployed or drive the cost of implimentation/usage up (not good). Additionally, proprietary also means no (or very limited) peer review of the source, which results in poor security.

Vonage uses standard voice CODECs. That's the good news. The bad news? They're old and terribly out of date compared to the compression and quality of modern CODECs.

What we really need is a W3C of sound technologies, broken into workgroups that focus on specific areas (local storage based music, Voice, etc., in both streaming and non-streaming flavors). These, in turn should tie in with the video folks who have local-based video clip, TV, DVD, HD, etc., with streaming and non-streaming flavors), and, ideally, the two groups would collaborate for use of the other groups standards (to tackle stuff like music videos, video conferencing, etc. (using local or streamed combinations of the complimentary audio & video CODECs).

Unfortunately, I haven't seen this collaboration. Sure the JPEG guys (and gals) are working on pics and motion, and whoever is in the MPEG (is there such a thing) are working on theirs... But what of a group for audio... Is it just a hodgepodge of disassociated circus acts?

Imagine if the folks at Microsoft, Pioneer, Maxell, Skype, Vonage, AT&T, Ogg Vorbis, etc. all joined an audio special interest group (A-SIG) (similar to what we've got with Bluetooth?) to produce open-source, freely licensed audio CODEC... Then imagine that their work plugged in seamlessly with a V-SIG (Video SIG), and vice versa... No more worries about Real Player, Windows Media 9, QuickTime, Divx, Xvid, etc... We'd just have a family of CODECs which would be used by the author for his/her various audience configurations....

Nirvana?

[Jonathan1]

Microsoft is like a 10 year old kid with a severe case of A.D.D. They can’t focus on one thing for more then 2 years before they jump to something else. Thankfully so far they haven't lost interest in the Pocket PC yet. I'm wondering if/when they will lose interest in the Tablet PC?? :?:

[carrigaline]

Skype is made by the people behind Kazaa and uses your pc as a "supernode", drawing down your system's capacity to maintain their network. Anything linked to Kazaa is risky to me - spyware, viruses - you never know what else. I am not comfortable with having that on my pc or ppc under it's current form and ownership.....maybe MS could bring out something equivalent.

Really? Interesting? Do you have a link to an article or anything?


From the website privacy policy:

"From time-to-time your computer may become a Supernode. A Supernode is a computer running Skype Software that has been automatically elevated to act as a hub. Supernodes may assist in helping other users to communicate or use the Skype software efficiently. This may include the ability for your computer to help anonymously and securely facilitate communications between other users of the Skype Software who, due to network and firewall constraints, cannot establish direct connections."

http://www.skype.com/privacy.html

The site also has details on it's creator Kazaa under "The Company" link.

[Mark Johnson]

What we really need is a W3C of sound technologies...


This is a really valid point. It seems like there is some progress in making Ogg Vorbis more of a standard. I think it's growth will come not so much from existing or new standards-bodies pushing it, but just from users demanding it be supported in the products they buy.

I've made it a point at the last few Comdex shows to ask the MP3 player guys if their devices supported Vorbis. The first year I got nothing but blank stares. The second year some of them had heard of it. This year you can go out and buy the Rio Karma today (20gb) and play back your Vorbis files on it if you want to. It's one of a small handful of players, but it's progress. It makes sense that manufacturers would be WILLING to support it since they have no license penalty, but they need a bit of a push.

If a lot of people keep looking for (and asking for) open-source codec support in the hardware and software products they buy we'll win this fight in the long run. Vote with your dollars: buy the Rio Karma instead of that iPod you were thinking about. (Of course if these guys succeed in getting Linux running on the iPod I'll be running out to buy one the same day since Vorbis would work then! http://ipodlinux.sourceforge.net)

[Ketsugi]

I would LOVE to see VoIP integrated into Windows; the real question is, how long till the anti-monopoly lawsuits get filed?

[Zack Mahdavi]

I would LOVE to see VoIP integrated into Windows; the real question is, how long till the anti-monopoly lawsuits get filed?

But why do you want it integrated? There's plenty of VoIP programs already available that integrate themselves really well into Windows. Why have another feature in Windows that only 1% of users will actually use?

[David Johnston]

Skype is made by the people behind Kazaa and uses your pc as a "supernode", drawing down your system's capacity to maintain their network. Anything linked to Kazaa is risky to me - spyware, viruses - you never know what else.

Which is exactly why it would be great if MS were to extract the technology and build it into a standard feature of Windows - they'd have to strip any (spy|ad|.*)ware stuff out or face a PR disaster.

But then again, I can't help but be scared it'd just end up as a component of Messenger... (which would make perfect sense, but doesn't seem 'right').

[David Johnston]

But why do you want it integrated? There's plenty of VoIP programs already available that integrate themselves really well into Windows.

That's the problem - there are so many that in order to speak to all your friends, you need about 20 different programs sitting there in your system tray, looking smug and trigger-happy... A standard solution would make it a lot easier for everyone and help introduce new users to the world of VoIP.

[Skoobouy]

My worry is that Microsoft would make Skype harder, rather than easier, to get and use. The Skype team still promises interactivity with regular phones sometime in the future; whatever happens, I hope MS lets them do this (and perfect the interface) before they take over, if they do.

It is not always a bad thing for MS to do this, at least from a superficial point of view for the consumer (which is not the only PoV by far). I can't tell you guys how happy I am about the integrated FTP and CD-burning utilities in Windows XP. I might be happy--competitors might have reason to curse and spit.

But please, please, please, please... KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!

[Kiki]

I'd love Skype to be integrated into MSM and automatically use a USB phone as if it were a real phone, sending and receiving from any phone. I wouldn't mind paying a monthly fee for the landline connections, especially since I make a lot of international calls, as long as it's easy and the quality is there.

[joelevi]

I'd love Skype to be integrated into MSM and automatically use a USB phone as if it were a real phone, sending and receiving from any phone. I wouldn't mind paying a monthly fee for the landline connections, especially since I make a lot of international calls, as long as it's easy and the quality is there.

Have you considered Vonage (http://www.vonage.com/?refer_id=leviz)? It's a box that you plug into your broadband connection, then plug your house's phone wiring (or a single phone, whatever you prefer) into it. Pick up any regular handset and dial 1+area code, then the number and you're connected. Neither part "knows" that they're on a VoIP connection, the features are ALL there (can you say "voicemail to email at last"?), the price is GREAT, yadda yadda yadda... I love mine.

[possmann]

Neat idea, but I'm cautious about the whole thing... First this is pure speculation and to make a statement like MS is taking the focus off of Smartphones is totally absurd :roll:

I'd like to see this added as a FREE feature within Messenger perhaps - but not integrated into their OS. I am also concerned about anything that comes from Kazzaa - peer to peer and file sharing is just a bit over the risk threshold for me. I would think that IF (notice the big IF) MS purchased skype they'd integrate it into the communications server package - onemeeting application or something like that rather than for personal use alone. MS tends to focus on the business area and the ROI for businesses in using their technology. Microsoft is out to make money and you can't make money by giving stuff away so I would see first use of this focused on corporate use only...

[wmm]

Skype has been generating a lot of noise recently. How is it different from Free World Dialup (http://www.freeworldialup.com/), which has been around for a couple of years and has 100,000+ users? I recently used it to stay in touch with my family in Massachusetts from a meeting I was attending in Sydney, Australia. There are free software phones (links from the FWD site) that run on my laptop (X-Lite) and PPC (SJPhone).

[naquada]

where did you work out that skpye's uk office in in thames valley park ?? I can almost but not quite see TVP from my house...

anyone that knows TVP will know that not many small companies sit down down... unless they are sub renting off someone...

anyone want me to wonder down there tomorrow and try and find their office ?? :) :)

[hotweiss]

THIS IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN!!! What can Microsoft do with Skype? Integrate it into Messenger. Does Microsoft need Skype to implement this technology into Messenger? NO! Skype's technology is open and it lisences their codec from Global IP Sound. The issue at hand is Skype's popularity due to its implementation! And now it's stealing business from the big boys and not charging a penny for it; and yes there is corporate collusion at the top. Do you really think Microsoft cannot create something on the same level as Skype? Microsoft never attempted to create such a product due to the fact that it will work and it will cost nothing to run - and this not what you do in a capitalist society governed by corporations where they would like to have your money anyway they can (your already starting to pay for water, air is next). The issue at hand is to destroy Skype as we know it.

[hotweiss]

Skype has been generating a lot of noise recently. How is it different from Free World Dialup (http://www.freeworldialup.com/), which has been around for a couple of years and has 100,000+ users? I recently used it to stay in touch with my family in Massachusetts from a meeting I was attending in Sydney, Australia. There are free software phones (links from the FWD site) that run on my laptop (X-Lite) and PPC (SJPhone).

Skype uses more advanced codecs and it can get through a firewall via port 80. Which is important to me, as most of my ports are blocked here in my dorm.
One other thing that makes Skype successful is the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principal. Compare Skype to FWD as far as configurability and useability is concerned.

[wmm]

Skype uses more advanced codecs and it can get through a firewall via port 80. Which is important to me, as most of my ports are blocked here in my dorm.

A couple of points here. First, FWD does not make soft phones or codecs, it just provides the servers that allow users of third-party software and hardware phones to connect and communicate. As far as I know, people using software with more advanced codecs can use FWD to talk to each other.

Second, I don't know what the technology involved is, but I have no trouble connecting with their servers from behind my NAT firewall at home using either of the two free software phones I mentioned earlier. I don't know whether that would be true of your dorm situation or not.

One other thing that makes Skype successful is the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principal. Compare Skype to FWD as far as configurability and useability is concerned.

Various software phone makers provide their applications preconfigured for FWD. Setting up SJPhone on my Toshiba e805 was literally just typing in my number and password. It couldn't possibly have been any simpler. Putting X-Lite on my home computer was almost as easy, and that included the initial registration as part of the process.

I'm in no way putting Skype down; by being an all-in-one provider and using the codecs you mentioned, they very well may be providing a better service than FWD. It's just that the reporting and discussion I've seen so far was as if Skype were something brand new and revolutionary. It sounded a lot like FWD to me, so I was wondering whether people were just unaware of FWD or whether I were missing something fundamental.

[ignace]

could skype put an end in the future to the telecom operators?