[wetsocket]

MS using Linux to run their business. That says it all.

A company with more money than it knows what to do with, acting desperately to save itself from obsolescence.

Skype was flawed from the outset, being non-transparent (about how the network is set up, turning machines into supernodes withtout permission, and the encryption they use). It's all closed. Why? You can't verify it's well-designed. Now it's worse. Do I want MS routing my calls? Scanning every file transfer? Being able to peek at any video?

No thanks. That's not their role.

There are other true decentralised P2P Video/oiceOIP solutions. People now know that free calls, even video calls, through the internet are feasible, even without having technical knowledge.

Right now, use Skype. But it will not hold the market when more robust, flexible, decentralised, transparent services are ready for non-technical users.

Because they will be free. And Skype will not be free: the price you will pay, to a software company[1], is your privacy, at the least, and probably more.

1. No software company has a need to know such things. They are not the government, they are not law enforcement, and they are not defenders of national security. They are a software company. Who are they accountable to? It's just not a smart idea to let MS take this role. The potential for abuse is too great.

[wmf]

I remember when open source P2P VoIP was "being polished" in 2002. I guess if we're lucky we'll get WebRTC, but being from Google it may not satisfy the wannabe cypherpunks.

[angersock]

If we had 1 good application programmer for every 100 cryptoweenies, the world would be a better place.

Write code or shut the fuck up.

[wetsocket]

Code is written. Command line only. So not ready for you yet.

There are good application programmers (who are also competent cryptographers). But it seems, based on mailing list and forum comments, all the incompetent ones hold them in spite. One can only guess why.

[286c8cb04bda]

Command line is good enough for me; Where can I find it?

[AJ007]

If Skype is flawed, then to a certain degree so is Facebook, SMS messaging, Facetime, and the rest. Being able to sell your company for billions two times, keeping ownership of the underlying technical IP and suing the first buyer seems like a pretty shrewd business model to me.

Of course I wish everyone was using end-to-end encrypted audio, text, and video communication with onion routing in the middle. But we aren't there yet. Arguably because everyone with A-list business, marketing, and technical acumen would rather be a billionaire.

[snarkinatree]

Nothing wrong with what Skype did. He made his money. Good for him. The point is that Skype is not magic. It's something that can be replicated, with simplicity and transparency.

I agree, the greed factor is great. And one would imagine some of those with the skill to make a "Skype" might think "Why should I do this for free?" Then you also have the perfectionists, with the skills, who won't attempt to build something that cannot be "perfect". They love to say "It won't work."

Skype is not perfect. And it's very non-transparent. But people are using it.

Should the next Skype be free and open? Is it worth building? I think the answers will become evident going forward. I think communication over the internet is too important to be solely controlled by [insert unflattering description here].

But we shall see.

[Karunamon]

  >Skype was flawed from the outset, being non-transparent (about how the network is set up, turning machines into supernodes withtout permission, and the encryption they use). It's all closed. Why? You can't verify it's well-designed.

Perhaps relevant for a FOSS zealot (and I really don't mean that in a derogatory way here, there's a time and a place), but the average user doesn't care about the infrastructure - they want it to work and work well. And Skype pretty much always has, at least in my experience.

[snarkinatree]

I'm definitely not a FOSS zealot. However I might be a zealot for simplicity, lucidity, keeping code small, unclever and boring, making compilation quick and easy, not tolerating many of the annoyances so many folks routinely accept. I do not like "black boxes". Even if they work.

re: Skype I simply see no reason that something so essential, and so simple, as a P2P application (note the P2P application does not have to be tied to the VOIP application, or whatever applications you want to run over the P2P connection) needs to be a proprietary product.

It does need to work and work well. The P2P element does that. It will consistently work. It's the audio/video element that is difficult to get right across all connections in all environments.

Perhaps that's why you read some people saying Skype works great for them and other saying it doesn't work so great. Consider that in every case, the connection gets set up just fine. People can connect very easily. P2P is the easy part. It's the audio/video quality that varies. Because everyone's bandwidth situation is different.

Unfortunately there's a lot of chatter about NAT, IPv6, crytography, and other non-issues, which distracts people from focusing the real issue: codecs; making the audio/video element work smoothly over a variety of bandwidth scenarios. That's what everyone wants: clear sound and video.

If you do not fear the command line and want to see a proof of concept of how easy P2P is to set up, leave some way for me to contact you.

[Karunamon]

Okay! I appreciate the offer!

I just put Twitter on my profile - toss me a DM on there whenever you get a chance.

[kalleboo]

>　Right now, use Skype. But it will not hold the market when more robust, flexible, decentralised, transparent services are ready for non-technical users.

You forgot "easy to use", "fun" and "attractive". Normal people don't care about those things you said.

[snarkinatree]

Normal people care about price. As in free calls.

All three criteria you mention are very easy to meet. Skype's GUI was thrown together quickly in Delphi. Yet it's good enough for most users. The bar is set very low.

Features could be added to a next generation "open Skype" (e.g. streaming music or video to several of your friends, simultaneously) that would make it even more fun and attractive, but the RIAA and MPAA would be up in arms within 24 hrs of release.

HN is a place where we routinely discuss things that "normal people" don't care about. That doesn't mean those things are not important. Someone has to deal with the details that enable you to make your easy, fun and free calls, though you might not care such details.