I don't see why people would quit using Skype now. The fact that it has been bought by Microsoft doesn't change that Skype is evil. It already was. It already was a closed source software using a proprietary protocol and doing stuff you don't know with your bandwidth.
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.
Really? "Evil" just because it's closed-source? Regardless, I'd imagine most Linux Skype users have at least a few Windows users on their contact lists -- and good luck getting them to switch operating systems.
When Skype is installed, it changes each phone number in your browser to a Skype button. For years webdesigners have been going crazy trying to convince either their clients to uninstall Skype or Skype to provide a durable fix for not wanting your phone-numbers highlighted.
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)
Just humorous accident. I got request to update Skype this morning and after update all I get is this: http://i.imgur.com/qYcwd.png (after that skype crashes).
I see quite a lot of good reasons for it - but the site fails to list any decent alternatives. I don't think there are any at this point.
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.
Unfortunately the desktop client needs some work, and AFAIK it supports only windows.
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 :)).
I know absolutely nobody who uses Google Talk. Posting on Facebook "Does anyone here really use Google Talk?" there was a roaring silence in response.
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.
Good luck doing a job or phd interview on google talk. My understanding is that skype has patents on a myriad of things related to live audio/video. Plus it works really really well and does screen sharing too (which means you can do presentations online). It's not just the network effect here. It's actually a better-than-the-rest product (and i sure hope MS won't make it a mess). Plus, its not less free than gtalk .
Hm, 3 Options, of which one only supports Linux (Empathy) and one only supports Windows & Linux (Ekiga). Only Linphone seems to have platform support that comes close to Skype. So, cut it down to one.
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.
Linphone is "just" a SIP client. Your contacts can use it if they want and you can use another SIP client. Just like Google Talk use XMPP and people can use any client to connect to their GTalk account and then talk with anyone using Jabber/XMPP (even not Google Talk).
That's why open protocols are good. Because they're open.
It's great that there's replacements. But let's be serious, I'm not going to be able to convince my friends/family who by and large is not going to care about any changes that MS brings to Skype.
Alternative VOIP programs are not in anyway new, the same issue of getting people to actually use these programs is still prevalent.
Don't underestimate the blanket coverage that Skype achieved.
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.
In most cases there are alternatives to every social platform, and frequently better ones than the popular 'standard'... but if there is no one there you want to talk to, it's not too useful.
I use Skype to simplify international calling. I have a phone number in Poland (bought through Skype). People in Poland dial that number, and Skype routes it to a number of my choosing. I have numbers in countries that my family lives in. For them it is a local call, and it always gets directly to me.
Neither of the three shown alternatives provide this feature.
Although not cross-platform, FaceTime has one killer feature: it passes the mom test. Skype has passed it too, but not with as many flying colours as FaceTime.
Mom push button, mom video chatting with grand kids. No intervention from grand kids required.
[+] [-] p4bl0|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] steve-howard|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigzero|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stashdot|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blauwbilgorgel|15 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] daliusd|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jister|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darklajid|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] maqr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bad_user|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] trezor|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ignifero|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Argorak|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] p4bl0|15 years ago|reply
That's why open protocols are good. Because they're open.
[+] [-] Wickk|15 years ago|reply
Alternative VOIP programs are not in anyway new, the same issue of getting people to actually use these programs is still prevalent.
[+] [-] AndrewWarner|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] StavrosK|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josefresco|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 51Cards|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamzochowski|15 years ago|reply
Neither of the three shown alternatives provide this feature.
[+] [-] joshaidan|15 years ago|reply
Mom push button, mom video chatting with grand kids. No intervention from grand kids required.
[+] [-] kmccarth|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Estragon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bxr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timedoctor|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aramgutang|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootnt|15 years ago|reply