Bye Bye Skype, Top 3 Free Replacements
ostatic.com
ostatic.com
Don't get me wrong, it's great if people switch from Skype to something free (as in freedom), but not if it's because it has been bought by Microsoft, this makes no sense.
Skype will support Microsoft devices like Xbox and Kinect, Windows Phone and a wide array of Windows devices, and Microsoft will connect Skype users with Lync, Outlook, Xbox Live and other communities. Microsoft will continue to invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms.
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2011/may11/05-10Cor...
They rebutted it. I don't really see how they could refute it.
If one was really naive I guess one might imagine that "invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms" might cover linux rather than a limited set of possible platforms. I have no worries about the java based client on my phone for example.
Arguable if they will or not, but I don't think they could have been more direct than this
See: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/press_releases/press_release.c...
and 2 years later: http://www.cio.com/article/532513/Microsoft_to_Drop_Linux_Un...
Disclaimer: I'm guilty myself since I use facebook for instance.
The protocol and client are both obfuscated at cost to performance and security. Exploits have been found repeatedly for everything from remote code execution to using skype clients like a botnet.
Non-NAT'd nodes are forced to carry traffic for NATed nodes. Skype have the ability to intercept your calls, but you guessed that anyway.
Also, if everyone in the world used one phone company, or bank, and that company refused to allow other new companies to inter-operate, they would face antitrust. Skype, and arguably facebook, control their markets. They should be forced to allow inter-op.
> Skype, and arguably facebook, control their markets.
> doing stuff you don't know with your bandwidth.
You can safely call the Skype extension evil malware, if your giant call-to-action phonenumber is forced to be written like this: 012-34[span style="display:none"]_[/span]5678 or it becomes hijacked by a video chat program.
This thread starts at 2007 and goes downhill from there: http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showtopic=78380 (Look at the meta tag solution, that works for a while, but doesn't work in XHTML strict. Microsoft and Skype definitely deserve each other)
To give you an impression of things that might speak against using Skype (not that I want to imply that these should matter to you. I merely want to speak for the 'I'd like to leave (but cannot)' side):
1) It's proprietary. We cannot validate the protocol without reverse engineering (and even then they'd be free to break/change it). The security of Skype calls, one of the loudest arguments for using it, is dubious and it seems to be a fact by now that governments are allowed to/capable of recoding your calls.
2) Resource heavy: If you ever compared a Skype conference (audio only) with any other system, the resource usage is ridiculous. Mostly CPU, but also network wise.
3) In your face advertisements: The (unacceptable) UI constantly pops up with 'subscribe here'/'buy credits there'/'did you know all the other ways you can hand over your money'. You can turn off most of these, but an update usually leads to the very same thing.
4) Maybe related to the P2P architecture: The behavior is unpredictable at times. I often see people online, they don't see me. Or vice versa. I can talk to someone on Skype, but messages (say, a link) fail to be delivered. Sometimes messages queue up for hours and completely lose their meaning when they arrive at 1am, asking about having lunch.
IF, and I stress if, there is a better option, for users then I suggest use it. But arguments such as it was bought by Microsoft therefore it must be bad do not make sense. To be more specific, Skype had all the valid issues it had (such as proprietary format, advertising etc.) before it was acquired by Microsoft. The only new factor is its acquisition.
The fact that certain companies, Microsoft, IBM etc. have an 'evil', 'corporate' air about them, whereas companies (and this is a generalization for the sake of example) such as Google and Apple are the good guys don't make sense. I would like to see free software promoted for its merits, and to see bogus arguments based around who makes the product to disappear from the IT world.
No company is less evil than any other, and whether products should be used or not should not depend on who owns them, but how the products operate.
No company is less evil than any other
"Evilness" is not judged only by potential, but also by reputation based on previous history. Clearly companies are in the business of making money, so at some point they may break rules in order to make money, but so do individuals when placed in positions of power.
And no baby is more evil than any other baby, but grownups are very different in that regard, that's why people rely so much on reputation when discussing a person's ethics and trustworthiness, since it's the only metric that counts.
Clearly you can compare the evilness of any 2 companies by looking at their past history, just as we do with individual human beings.
whether products should be used or not
should not depend on who owns them
And when building relationships in general, you also have to take into account how that company or person is treating other customers.
Not that open-source products are any better (I'm referring to those who's main sponsor retains copyrights for all contributions), as there have been instances where communities haven't read the "fine print", with the main sponsors later turning around and screwing with said communities. See Sun/Oracle and their schizophrenic involvement in projects such as Mysql and Java.
This is the main reason why companies are acting the way they do, constantly screwing their customers, because customers take it as a fact of life that such companies can screw with them.
Imagine if your neighbor took a piss in your roses every Friday, and you found out about it. Would you still lent him your lawn mower next time he asks? Why would you allow companies to constantly piss on your lawn, instead of voting with your wallet and taking your business to some other company that cares more about you?
I mean, capitalism itself only works efficiently if you are voting with your wallet.
Since you responded to my comment, let me reply to this with 'Exactly. I didn't (intended to) imply anything else'. We're on the same page.
Sure, some people might look into alternatives because of other reasons (aquisition). My reply listed just issues I have with the product itself though (and for a long time already..).
http://www.google.com/search?q=blackwater+allegations
Microsoft (and most tech companies) are not very evil in comparison so I think it's very possible to make a quick heuristic determination about how evil two companies are.
Now, take away Xe and compare Microsoft, Google, IBM, and Apple for example. Certainly one is most evil and one is the least evil.
The problem I think you're pointing out is that they are probably very close to each other on the good-evil spectrum. Our moral irises have just opened all the way because we sit in comfortable padded chairs and wiggle our fingers over a plastic box all day to make a nice living.
And another thing I don't like about Google Talk is that last time I tried, it had no support for multi-user video-conferencing. Neither do the free Skype accounts, but I think on Skype you can have a video-conference with up to 4 users.
So if Google is going to put some resources into GTalk, then it will kick-ass (you'll just tell your friends / colleagues to download the client and to use their GMail account for login), or just use the GMail web interface (which currently is more capable than the stable desktop client :)).
Otherwise there is no good alternative to Skype.
I can't for the life of me see why you would go from a minor evil service like Skype/MSN/whatever with a variety of clients to choose from to a monsterous big-brother service like Google Talk.
Aren't we giving Google enough power and dominance as it is?
Edit: To comment on the actual article, it seems to be a mix of supposedly fashionate "Microsoft sucks" attitude, standard "Microsoft is evil" paranoia and some legitimate concerns about future support for non-Microsoft platforms.
IMO the only one worthy of discussion would be the last one.
2) In corporate environment it's sometimes the only option, due to inability to install 3rd party software.
3) There's a huge advantage of GTalk over Skype - Skype is a P2P protocol. If you send a message to an offline contact and disconnect, he will never receive it unless at some point you are both online. It makes sense for VOIP obviously, but for IM that's just ridiculous.
For the same reason there's no server-side history - no way to reach lot of important information after you reinstall the system, break computer etc.
I've never used the voice/video desktop client though.
But more seriously, me and most of my contacts have switched to Google Talk as the Windows Live client is very bloated these days and GTalk generally connects faster and is always there as part of Gmail when you log in on any platform on any computer (eg friend's computer, library etc).
I thought starting to aggressively add non-core features was one of the key things which made people hate Yahoo and Hotmail? So how is Google doing with gmail these days:
- Talk. I'm Google Bob. Do you want to chat with this contact?
- Buzz. Yeah how about that?
- Whoah! Wait NO we will not let you download this calendar invitation for
Outlook. Please sign up for Google Calendar or forget about ever responding!
Teehee
- OH HEY PLEASE USE CHROME
- Dude! Dude! I'm Google Voice and you should seriously use me to call!!
- Oh wait, you're from outside the US? Sorry you cant!!
I'll just leave the voice UI all here for you though. lol.
Not saying you are wrong, but I never really though about it that way. I value purity and Gmail is getting messy. If Google Talk had been an actual stand-alone application and not ... crummed in stuff I didn't ask for, now then maybe I would use it. Then it wouldn't be invasive UI noise in my mail app.
I guess it all depends of the people around you.
Personally, I think Linphone looks kind of dated and their site is full of google adwords. I would hesitate to send a link out to anyone.
That's why open protocols are good. Because they're open.
I would much prefer that to the secretive doings of Microskype, but you have to sell your alternatives and not underestimate network effects, especially in the network market.
"Don't use Skype! Please!" doesn't really mean much when everybody I'd (or most people) would ever want to talk to thinks that Ekiga is a funny name for a rash.
Alternative VOIP programs are not in anyway new, the same issue of getting people to actually use these programs is still prevalent.
I do interviews with people all over the world who have Skype already installed on their computers.
If I shifted to a different program -- even if it was better -- I'd have to spend time helping instal the new app before we could start our conversation.
Here's hoping for Viber, I guess...
Neither of the three shown alternatives provide this feature.
Mom push button, mom video chatting with grand kids. No intervention from grand kids required.
It may come as a shock to some people, but the overwhelming majority of people--even in the tech would--literally could not care less if their VOIP client is FSF-approved and based on open standards. "Does it work?" is a much more powerful consideration.
Outside of your strawmen, I don't think you're shocking anybody.
In the general case, for the overwhelming majority of people, things that work are more important than things that are ideologically pure.