Facebook Wants To Buy Skype 192
An anonymous reader writes "Remember when we learned that Facebook had resumed talks with Skype? Well, it turns out that Facebook is considering buying Skype outright. 'Skype is reportedly talking to Facebook about some sort of deal. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been involved in internal discussions about buying Skype, while Facebook also reached out to the Luxembourg-based company about forming a joint venture.'"
New name? (Score:5, Funny)
If they buy Skype, they should change their name to Phonebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ideologue (Score:2)
Atlas did indeed shrug. Anyone who wants to see what liberals are all about should head to Detroit.
You, my friend, are an ideologue. This can be disproven by trying to find some disconfirming evidence for your previous statement. If you think none exists, then my point is proven.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it appears to be a shot at black Democrats, judging by the title. Who knows, maybe the guy is OK with black Republicans and black Independents, and maybe even black Libertarians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd get a good chuckle out of someone trying to trademark "Phonebook", it would point out how ridiculous trademarks are getting. If someone succeeded however, I'd probably cry too.
That would be almost like someone getting a trademark on the word 'face' [slashdot.org] in the field of 'Telecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users'.
So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, Skype has been a grudgingly-necessary eyesore for years, and yet we don't seem to have a widely-accepted and/or functionally-equivalent OSS project in the wild. How can this be?
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:5, Informative)
If you slap an Asterisk box on a static IP on the open internet, and then link your POTS phone number to your asterisk box through a directory service like E164.org, the 4 other guys who do that with asterisk can dial your phone number and their asterisk servers will realize that you're doing that too and call you over a data connection instead of through the traditional phone system. I'm pretty sure Asterisk can also initiate video conferencing sessions.
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just about the POTS service, though. I rarely, if ever, see folks using it for voice-only calls. People use it for (in my experience):
1) Text-only chat (which is bat-guano-insane, IMHO)
2) Video chats
#2 sees the most use in my family and company circles. If we want voice-only, we call the other person's cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's the iPhone (etc) skype clients, blah blah.
What Skype brings to the market is infrastructure and penetration. A cobble-it-together-yourself-out-of-FLOSS-components solution offers neither.
Somebody needs to (somehow) make this easy AND free.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Text-only chat (which is bat-guano-insane, IMHO)
Why would I use three different client types for different communications when one covers them all? That sounds a lot like having one car to go shopping, one to go to work, and one for the weekend. Personally, I don't have the inclination to maintain three cars, and one which does all three jobs is ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
...Because the Mac client is a hideously-designed UI and slow as all get-out, plus I can use Meebo to integrate all my other chat channels?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I use three different client types for different communications when one covers them all? That sounds a lot like having one car to go shopping, one to go to work, and one for the weekend. Personally, I don't have the inclination to maintain three cars, and one which does all three jobs is ideal.
Well, I might have a van or SUV to do my shopping, a Prius or other hybrid for the commute, and a motorcycle for the weekend. And a truck for when friends need to move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an online DnD group that I play with on weekends. Between then, we keep in touch using the text chat built into Skype. We don't use video, either (although that might change due to some friends from a different DnD session moving away).
Having it all in one nice, compact package is really nice. Keeps problems to a minimum, too. Lord knows trying to coordinate seven people between three different programs is a nightmare and half.
Re: (Score:2)
Will somebody punch this guy's frequent geek card?
Re: (Score:2)
/blush
Re: (Score:2)
We do the same thing. We've tried the group video chat using the free preview, but in the end the video screen ended up being hidden, even by those of us with multiple monitors. We also used MapTool (rptools.net) for a virtual tabletop, so that was always maximized on one screen, and I usually had the SRD or our campaign wiki open on the other screen.
Skype sat in the background, giving us the group voice chat. We'd occasionally text chat there too, but MapTool has it's own chat window (which now supports
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.linphone.org/ [linphone.org]
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:4, Interesting)
XMPP video with Pidgin.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly it only works on Linux, iirc.
Re: (Score:2)
Do either of these support
1) multiple concurrent video chat streams
2) Windows, Mac & Linux with a similar UI
Re: (Score:2)
Windows, Mac & Linux with a similar UI
The first sign of a lousy port. Try instead: Windows, Mac & Linux versions, with UIs that fit each system's UI guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows, Mac & Linux with a similar UI
The first sign of a lousy port. Try instead: Windows, Mac & Linux versions, with UIs that fit each system's UI guidelines.
I hope you're not serious. If you are, wxWidgets [wxwidgets.org] does exactly what you say is the sign of a lousy port and fits each system's UI guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure what you mean.
If you mean n-way video chat, where n>2, Skype (on Linux at least, I have never tried on Windows) does not support this, so it is not a step backwards.
If you mean multiple independent chat streams, you could just run multiple copies of the program.
Or does Skype allow multiple video sources in one call?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean allowing multiple video streams on one call, yes. Perhaps the Linux client doesn't yet allow for it. The Pro/subscriber edition on Mac and Windows does, at least in theory.
Re: (Score:2)
It works on Windows and Linux, no?
Re: (Score:3)
How can this be?
It's simple: Skype is to Ekiga as Windows was to GNU/Linux circa 1998. When end users think of VoIP, they thing of Skype, not Ekiga, and only people who are both technically sophisticated and who "get it" (that is, people who want to avoid proprietary software) are the ones using Ekiga. To make matters worse, Ekiga for Windows is poorly supported, poorly functioning, and difficult to configure -- so GNU/Linux users who want to communicate with Windows users are left in a difficult position.
Re: (Score:3)
It's simple, though -- a Skype-replacement just needs to end up on Leo Laporte's desk. He and his TWiT network cohorts have been ragging on Skype for years, and yet they continue to use it because it
1) works on durn near every OS out there
2) is easy to acquire and install for potential collaborators
Re: (Score:2)
How well do Ekiga do NAT traversal? I think the problem-free nature of the Skype system for such is what got it going in the first place. And now that it is entrenched, its proprietary nature keeps it there as few people are interested in making the jump to some FOSS system. This largely thanks to having everyone they know already using Skype.
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:5, Informative)
There were also hoards of VoIP companies offering those services for under half the price charged by Skype, although some bundled the in-dial and out-dial. In fact, there are only a very few marketing heavy VoIP providers like Vonage charging more than Skype. The real issues are :
(1) Skype's user experience obliterates every other VoIP provider : Download & run Skype, make account, done. No tweak this setting if you use symmetric NAT. No please pay us first. etc.
(2) Skype has NAT traversal that afaik equals or beats any other VoIP software & provider combo. In fact, they use almost exactly the same NAT traversal tricks, but they may ask other clients to provide TURN (relay) when STUN fails, and maybe their STUN servers are better too. TURN gets expensive if the calls are all free.
(3) Skpye simplifies finding people you know who use Skype. And they've always encouraged people to talk to strangers, making it more likely that your friends already use Skype.
(4) Skype's encryption gives small businesses greater confidence.
If you wish to compete with Skype, you must (a) match them on PTSN price while offering awesome STUN and TURN, (b) match or beat them at friend finding, (c) beat them on encryption, i.e. use an open source client, preferably Zfone, and (d) offer "something more".
I think the logical "something more" might be encrypted friend-to-friend file sharing, perhaps with discussion threads ala facebook's photos. All IM clients offer file transfers, but no popular ones offer file sharing.
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, Skype has been a grudgingly-necessary eyesore for years, and yet we don't seem to have a widely-accepted and/or functionally-equivalent OSS project in the wild. How can this be?
There are plenty of OSS alternatives out there...
All sorts of VoIP softphones, text chat programs, videoconferencing apps...
But that's kind of the problem. Skype is a single company and a single app. There isn't any confusion or choice. You say "I'm on Skype" and folks know how they can get in touch with you. You say "I use Ekiga" and they look at you like you've grown a third eye.
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't really one. Ekiga is close, but if you've ever tried to use it you'll know it's really tempramental. Pidgin's voice and video support is somewhat popular but I've no idea how well that works either, though it does supposedly interoperate nicely with Google Talk on Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a couple. The problem is, even the few that are available for windows, osx, and linux aren't any better than skype.
If you want to do a conference call, you have to run your own server, or find and pay someone.
In Skype, you just pay them and don't have to worry about any technical details or voip lingo.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is the FLOSS alternative to Facebook? By this time were supposed to be using Diaspora or one of the several other competing projects
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:4, Funny)
With EIGHTEEN public diaspora pods [podupti.me] available, each with TENS of seeds, I think it's safe to say that everybody who's anybody is on Diaspora by now.
Re: (Score:2)
"With EIGHTEEN public diaspora pods available, each with TENS of seeds, I think it's safe to say that everybody who's anybody is on Diaspora by now."
I guess I am not anybody then. I am on their Facebook fan page and I had no idea they were up and running. I hope they don't that attitude and that they work harder about letting ordinary people know about the service or they will not even make a dent in replacing Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Smile, I was joking.
Given that they're open source advocates, I expect that they will have the typical FOSS tin ear for and pronounced distaste for marketing and advertising, which they would need to actually attract more users to their service.
Honestly, Diaspora is on track to become permanent "fun-time" beta abandon-ware, just like a large percentage of other Open Source projects (see: Sourceforge.net). Kudos to them for trying, but it seems to have been a poorly conceived notion that was poorly execute
Re: (Score:2)
No harm done.
How disappointing. With all of the hype about uber geeks contributing serious money to the project I was expecting a Facebook alternative that respected privacy.
I wonder if Diaspora fizzling out had anything to do with Mark Zuckerberg contributing to it.
Realistically, probably not.
College is the last time in a person's life where flaking out is okay and college students have large demands on their time. Zuckerberg probably knew this and knew his donation wouldn't produce any results beyond ma
Re: (Score:2)
I could be off-my-ass wrong, and I'll readily admit I'm speculating on their future prospects. But at this point, I see very little that suggests they're going to make a real go at Facebook - or even Myspace, before Myspace finally implodes. I don't think they've fizzled quite yet, there's still small amounts of activity over at github, but there certainly doesn't look like there's much of a trend towards more interest/contribution/users, and if you're challenging an established competitor, and you're not
Re: (Score:2)
My problem with Facebook and privacy is that Facebook changed the rules about what was private, several times, without notice, without permission and without apology.
Had those things been involved I could have chosen what I wanted to reveal like I would with slashdot, another blog or a web board.
I use Facebook now with the assumption that everything will be public, in time. I was looking forward to a "privacy aware" alternative to FB so I could relax and socialize more with my friend via the web. Now,
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.linphone.org/ [linphone.org]
You also have XMPP clients that do VOIP as well as VideoChat.
Heck Gtalk, MS Messenger, Yahoo Chat and many others will handle most of what you can do with Skype except for calling a phone number which might just be a matter of time if Google doesn't to that already.
You know in many ways the phone number system in the was a great geocentric routing system. 1 == long distance, area code would get you to that general area and then the general area was broken down into exchanges roughly
Functionally not possible for open source (Score:3)
This is the problem: In order to make calls between two people behind a NAT work, skype (ab)uses other, completely unrelated, clients to get the connection going. This would never fly in an open application because the helper feature would be immediately removed or disabled by the "other" clients.
This was a huge discussion point when skype first came out. If you got turned into a skype "supernode" it would eat your internet connection. Universities had major problems with this. But apparently slashd
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the FLOSS/open alternative to Facebook.
Soon, please!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Skype was huge way before their android and apple apps. Just sayin...
Re: (Score:3)
Skype was huge way before their android and apple apps. Just sayin...
Agreed: Skype became "the" thing way before it found a life on SmartPhones.
I have to agree with the earlier poster... I'm sure there are more open solutions out there, but I've yet to hear of anything large enough to even be considered a blip on Skype's radar.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that's only a part of the full solution... check the website in my sig for a full solution. Don't rack up another 200+ roaming charge cell bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Is non-existent in size, generally uses other networks and piggy-backs on them (such as in case of skype).
Re: (Score:2)
What's so hard to achieve? One iOS app, one Android app, sorted for the majority of smartphone users. I think the real barrier to a true OSS competitor would be setting up servers and doing deals to allow calls to normal phone networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, anyone who actually cares about using OSS either wouldn't have bought an iPhone in the first place, or would jailbreak it.
I don't really care one way or the other, I'm never going to own an iOS device. If people want to fuck themselves over like that, they're free to do so.
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:4, Informative)
List of Open Source VOIP Software [voip-info.org]. Feel free to verify or modify the source to your liking. I think Ekiga [ekiga.org] sounds like a nice starting point, though I don't know how secure it is. It even supports calls to normal phones, so it seems I was wrong about that being a massive barrier.
Personally I don't care about trustworthiness or security in voice/video chat, since I've only ever used it for chatting to friends. For business use then being assured of confidentiality is more important of course.
Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? Are we going to stick with this "change the source yourself" argument?
*sigh*
I tried using Ekiga... couldn't get it to work between a Windows and a Linux client. I wanted to video-chat with my wife and kids while on business trips. Then tried several video chats with no consistent success. Grudgingly tried Skype, and it works great. I now can video chat with my parents across the country as well.
Sorry, but Skype even on Linux just worked.
I have a CS degree (from way back) but I am no longer a programmer. I'm not about to pick it up just to get video chat to work.
If Facebook buys it, it will make me sad because I abhor Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
I was certainly using it WAY before Android or the iPhone turned up. It had a Windows CE client which I used on several occasions to make cheap calls via an iPaq.
That said, it's gone a down the route of other IM clients stuffing in ads and o
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, use our social network. Why? Because. (I'm almost paraphrasing the last one there, Orkut isn't bad, but nobody knows the damn thing exists, ADVERTISE GOOGLE, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS STUFF, IT IS YOUR BUSINESS)
Orkut is hugely popular in Brazil. Why? I have no idea; different cultures can be very different from one another and not make much sense to outsiders. Why do the Japanese believe that a person's blood type indicates their personality?
Orkut's been around for ages, but it just never caught
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it has anything to do with culture. Rather I suspect it's a question of the network effect. If 10 people you know already have Orkut accounts and 2 have Facebook accounts, which will you find more useful?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Network effect and chaos theory. Somewhere along the line, one Brazilian loves Orkut, and convinces a couple of friends to join it, and then next thing you know, the whole country's on there, like a butterfly flapping its wings and starting a tornado. In the USA, some people joined FB faster, so things swung that way.
What's interesting however, is that these things can change. It wasn't that long ago that MySpace was the dominant social media site in the US, but now everyone's moved to FB and MySpa
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have your butterfly effect confused with domino effect.
Re: (Score:2)
you were too busy taking all the credit for the SONY/PS3 network breach (or taking all the blame)
Google looking too? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that Google is looking at buying it too, which I'm hoping for since they're much more likely to open things up.
Re:Google looking too? (Score:4, Insightful)
https://github.com/facebook [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook opens up the wrong things.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I hate that Facebook opens up all my personal secrets to the world.
Oh wait, it doesn't do that, because I don't post my personal secrets to a social networking site, and if I did, I wouldn't expect them to remain secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to cancel your Skype account. (Score:2)
Not too sure what to replace it with. Google, perhaps. Ugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GoogleTalk/Voice combo is close to skype now. It even operates over open protocols. I know people who have both GV and Skype, and they use Skype more, because more people use it. Google needs to get off their ass and promote Talk/Voice better. And dumping Gizmo5 was one of the dumbest moves Google did. I'm just hoping the glimpse we got of sip support last month is a harbinger of things to come.
That, and I'm still kind of pissed that Google took international TXTing off Voice ...
I'm conflicted (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have any love for Facebook as a company, but frankly I have such a low opinion of Skype that it couldn't get too much worse, at least I hope. The funny thing is that I pay Skype hundreds of dollars a year for a service which is only borderline passable, but just like the telcos they're the only game in town, so there is no motovation for them to improve.
If Google released a competing product tomorrow I'd switch. And, no, Google Talk is NOT remotely comparable to Skype.
Re: (Score:3)
At least facebook likes open protocols.. Their chat is just jabber, and I can connect with Pidgin.. I like that, and would love to see them either open up the protocol to something new, or perhaps move it to libjingle or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Their support is frankly the worst I've ever dealt with from a company of their size, and their software is only one release away from breaking again (and never worked correctly on Android).
At least for Android I doubt this buyout would improve anything. Facebook's Android app is also terrible.
Confidentiality and insider trading laws, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone at Facebook in a position to know anything about any such possible deal is not legally allowed to say anything. If Facebook isn't dumb, they started any discussions with a confidentiality agreement due to their legal requirements not to say anything. Also, since Skype is privately owned, the majority owner would have nothing to gain by publicizing the talks.
That means that whoever is talking to the press about this is either:
1. some other party with a motivation for derailing the deal, such as eBay (a minority owner of Skype),
B. an insider at Facebook illegally attempting to manipulate the stock price, or
III. somebody with no clue who wants to seem cool to the business press.
Re: (Score:2)
IV. Incompetence.
IIIIIX. Someone ancillary
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Privacy in China at stake (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy in China at stake
* Privacy Everywhere at Stake *
Fixed that for you. Do you really want Facebook to know the phone numbers of everyone you call with Skype and share it with 300 of your closest friends in one of their inevitable revisions of "privacy" practices?
end-to-end encryption (Score:2)
No, that's just it. It very well can be encrypted end-to-end yet have virtually worthless security. That's why whenever someone merely brags about having encryption, it should set off alarms in your head. You can't meaningfully talk about encrypted communications without also talking about how keys are exchanged. Anyone who glosses over the topic of key exchange is probably bullshitting you. And guess what: Skype glosses over the topi
Facebook: putting ing in your soc (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry, they'll recommend that you keep Skype open in the background... For added connectivity.
I'd rather put Skype in the hands of GLaDOS.
Re: (Score:2)
All your phone calls (Score:2)
All your phone calls are belong to us!
Voice your disapproval (Score:5, Interesting)
Such an assimilation would be... (Score:2)
... the end of all that is unique and distinct. Game over, man!
Do Not Want... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like Skype -- I'm a paying customer. I like Facebook. I wouldn't trust Facebook (the company) with anything that I don't mind becoming 100% public, including my credit card, and use it with that knowledge in mind. I am not necessarily interested in Skypeing with my Facebook friends or the awkwardness of socially networking with my Skype contacts (who are mostly business collaborators). [One would hope that everyone has learned the lesson of Google Buzz].
I don't like the fact that the Internet is turning into AOL 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
For now, maybe. But in the future, choosing your participation in Facebook may be like choosing your degree of participation in the Internet.
Think about it: 20 years ago, if you wanted to buy a plane ticket you could look in your Yellow Pages, find a travel agent, and call them up to find you something at a reasonable price. You could go to a college campus and pick up a printed course catalog. Gadgets used to come with printed manuals instead of URLs where you can download them. The Internet is not exa
If it happens... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded - and yes I'm another one of those paying customers.
Why??? (Score:2)
Flee the evil ones and switch to Viber? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google has a low evil to power ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it's time to start looking for alternatives apart from google which isn't rolled out in the UK yet I have no Idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope not as well I would have to ditch skype completely I refuse to use facebook if this proves true I'm deleting my skype details immediately.
Guess it's time to start looking for alternatives apart from google which isn't rolled out in the UK yet I have no Idea.
Wait, I don't get it. You trust skype, but you don't trust facebook? What's the difference? They both are corporations which have profit as an objective.
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: track record.
Re:Noooooooo (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is what they sell to get that profit.
Skype sells time to use their service for web<->phone calls. Their product is their product.
Facebook sells their users' information to advertisers. Their users are their product.
Re: (Score:2)
Great! Except I cannot limit the search by class year, so I get hundreds, if not thousands of people from the past 20 years since I graduated. When all they need to do is add a "Class of XXXX" filter. How simple it would be.
Wow. I think even Livejournal can do that, and it doesn't even pretend to be a social network, let alone one oriented towards keeping in touch with classmates.
Re: (Score:2)
Except I cannot limit the search by class year, so I get hundreds, if not thousands of people from the past 20 years since I graduated. When all they need to do is add a "Class of XXXX" filter. How simple it would be.
So easy that it was one of the original features the first year of existence. Since opening up, they've slowly removed a lot of the features specific to schools and anything that could be considered an app.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll change the name.
Probably to "FaceBookTime" or something