use at your own caution
(I'm probably going to get downvoted for this because it always seems to be that any negative comment about skype == downvotes on HN.)
:edit: a hacker I've been following for a some time has a blog and writes about emerging open voice+video standards. I think that Thiago Camargo expresses many points very well. http://xmppjingle.blogspot.com/
Ideals aren't about convenience, that's why they're ideals. While I love Skype, I can appreciate the fact that it's stifling innovation and killing interoperability, since you can't use it with SIP...
It's as if we had email, and then a proprietary protocol which everyone used. Countless services would never have been created.
EDIT: Wait, this just converts your SIP phones to work with Skype, it doesn't allow you to call other SIP phones. E.g. I can't use it to call Truphone/Gizmo users with it. It's a two-tier phone service, same as IM clients. This is why the GP's ideals are a good thing.
anyways I don't like making predictions, but I can't see skype lasting 10+ years if they continue to pursue a closed architecture. it just will not happen.
What is most uncomfortable about skype to me is the fact that they are the single provider of their service; for example if you wanted to use another service you wouldn't be allowed to use that other network to contact a skype user. This is an example of a choice I consider to be wrong.
I can't see skype lasting 10+ years if they continue to
pursue a closed architecture. it just will not happen.
You can obtain similar functionality using a generic SIP VoIP account purchased through a reseller .. which will be free from the negative restrictions mentioned.
My understanding is that there's a benefit to choosing SIP over skype, because the technology is interoperable and non-proprietary.
I suppose, my point is that people don't need to rely on Skype to be able to call people for free. In my opinion, Skype isn't the only - or even best - choice.
Facetime on iphone 4 uses open standards including SIP, STUN and ICE. These are mature p2p technologies heavily used and deployed and are the same used in xmpp jingle specifications. open standard p2p already won this battle which skype will persist to fight.
I don't understand why the fact that Skype's proprietary makes it 'work [..] well going through a firewall'.
However, I'd argue that the fact Skype might work well with firewall's isn't _because_ it's proprietary. An open-standard could work just as well; it would take more effort and time to achieve it, but I think it would be worth the extra effort because the benefit would be more universally felt.
In my opinion, this shouldn't be a primary reason for preferring a proprietary solution over an open standard. If it was, Microsoft's early efforts to introduce proprietary tags into HTML markup wouldn't have been so universally deplored.
I can't imagine what kind of confusion would cause somebody to type that.
What sort of BS is that. For most people, it solves a real world problem very well.
I am of the opinion that for a site called Hacker News, most people here seem complacent to emprofit a company that locks you into their walled garden, meanwhile giving the finger to choice enablers that do the same exact thing.
I'd like to be able to contact friends/family/business partners using a service of my own chooising.