Microsoft Buying Skype for $8.5B 605
Approximately one trillion readers wrote in to tell us that there is a big rumor that Microsoft is buying Skype. This follows an earlier rumor that the
suitor was Facebook. Unsurprisingly many people are already wondering what it would mean for Linux users of the popular VoIP platform. Many major publications are running versions of the story.
Alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what's a good alternative to Skype that works cross-platform? I use Skype with Linux and Android connecting to Mac and Windows users. Is Jitsi a reasonable solution?
Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google Voice is pretty nice, gmail has an integrated client.
Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
Only available in the USA which doesn't make it a reasonable solution. :(
Re: (Score:3)
Only net-to-land calls that are restricted to certain countries, net-to-net work internationally.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Google Talk has a Voice & Video plugin for the three major platforms. It works right in the browser. You can even do video chat from an android tablet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure it'll see plenty of use on Hurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And when you want to talk to your mom? Or your sister in another country?
Re: (Score:3)
You want the good or the bad news?
The good news is that there's a protocol which provides the means for anyone to implement an alternative to skype, and lots of people already have. There's even hardware that supports it natively so you don't need to teach your grandma to use a software client. You buy the special phone, set it up for her and away she goes. It even supports video calls, it's called SIP.
The bad news is that outside of businesses, few people are using it. You can't use it to call other Sk
Re: (Score:3)
There's one big problem for most users with SIP that Skype solved.
SIP is not terribly useful without a SIP provider. Skype IS a Skype provider. And by that, I mean that when you download Skype, you've got a service to connect to other users, without having to do anything else. You've also got cheap dialout capability (it's about $3/month for US calls) and you've got cheap dialin capability (about $60/year in the US).
So you've got reasonable price, ease of use, and a largeish userbase that you can call wi
The future (Score:3, Insightful)
"wondering what it would mean for Linux users" - It means you're fucked! Sadly.
Re:The future (Score:4, Funny)
So negative. Don't you think Skype will continue providing a linux client program, just like they've always done?
Re:The future (Score:5, Insightful)
Aaaand this is why you never go proprietary. They can stop an application in it's entirety without anyone being able to pick it up and continue the work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Soooo you spend years not using some very good software because it's proprietary and might force you, at some point in the future, to not use it? Sounds like cutting your nose off to spite your face. What if they don't stop supporting the linux client? Then you've permanently removed yourself from being able to use Skype, and forced yourself to use some half-baked not-as-good alternative. Genius.
That is exactly what I do. I believe in open standards enough to invest time and effort into them. If others hadn't done that before us, we wouldn't have an Internet to discuss this over ...
and Skype wouldn't be worth $8e9.
Re: (Score:3)
In reality, Microsoft Office often doesn't work correctly either, creating documents that will crash Office on a different computer. Especially between Mac and Windows versions. Sure, OpenOffice isn't very good, but its main problem (slight incompatibility with MS Office) is something it shares with its main competition: MS Office itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Linux users are sources of revenue? Just going by that and percentage of Linux users vs other platforms, cutting off Linux is "free".
Being able to cut off Android, priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
First the Nokia assimilation, now this. A disastrous start to 2011 for geeks.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, it's just Microsoft struggling to find relevancy in a new world that it had never imagined and does not understand.
The only unfortunate thing is they're going to bring a whole lot of other companies down along with them.
Re: (Score:2)
"wondering what it would mean for Linux users" - It means you're fucked! Sadly.
No, it only means that those who traded convenience for freedom get fucked, even on (especially on) Linux.
Fortunately, I only use free software with my GNU/Linux distribution, thus when proprietary software makes its round of fucking people, to me seems like air-humping -- I point and laugh.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
we can only hope they actually follow through with this promise. we'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If nothing else it means very little in the short to medium term. They'd be fools to kill the Linux and Mac client development right off, even if that is their long term plan. Realistically though, MS has been pretty good about cross platform support on their non-core technologies lately. They've got several pieces of software on both the Android and iDevice App stores; and while the Silverlight client for Linux is clearly no one's top priority, it's getting regular updates. I'm not going to lie, I kind
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They'd be fools to kill the Linux and Mac client development right off, even if that is their long term plan.
You made a funny.
Realistically though, MS has been pretty good about cross platform support on their non-core technologies lately.
MS' cross-platform efforts are token. At best.
and while the Silverlight client for Linux is clearly no one's top priority, it's getting regular updates.
There is no silverlight client for Linux. Perhaps you were referring to moonlight. It is worthless. Virtually no content on the web will work with it. It is cross-platform in name only enough to keep the fanboys happy and the anti-trust hounds at bay.
Unless you just have moral issues with using anything associated with MS, I tend to think it'll be fine.
Yeah, because MS would never buy a product and then kill its Linux support. Right?? [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Ekiga (Score:3)
~ 10^9 submissions (Score:2)
Quick question (Score:3)
Does it uninstall cleanly?
MS Kinect as Living Room Game Changer (Score:2)
Turning the Living Room into a video conference room is what will get the grandparents to buy an Xbox, similar to the way photo-sharing through e-mail got The Folks online to begin with.
Come for the remote grandkid interaction, stay for the streaming music and video...
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you already do that with the Xbox? Video chat is definitely there on PS3 if you just plug in a USB webcam, though I haven't tried it on my Xbox (I assume that MS would charge you for a special Xbox webcam rather than just letting you use any peripherals you want)
Re: (Score:2)
charge you for a special Xbox webcam
It's called Kinect.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is like buying an Apache helicopter and using the 30mm cannon to mow your lawn.
Re: (Score:3)
Intrigue, newsletter, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"Can't you already do that with the Xbox?"
Yes using either Kinect or the older Live Vision Camera.
"I assume that MS would charge you for a special Xbox webcam rather than just letting you use any peripherals you want"
Well what are they supposed to do? Spend an absolute fortune providing device drivers for cameras they haven't made and don't make any profit from? Allow an option to install drivers which creates a massive potential for security vulnerabilities on their platform? Both devices are well understo
Not just linux users (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Came to say that too. Also PSP users may be first in line for trouble considering Sony and MS compete with PS3 and xbox360. Also you will likely see skype on kinect way before PS3 now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft has been getting a lot better about supporting alternative OSes on non-core products (Silverlight is another example).
Microsoft did not support silverlight on other OSes. They allowed the now defunct [linuxfordevices.com] mono project by Novel to implement moonlight - a compatible platform.
Sounds like a big risk to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft already has the technology necessary in their own audio/video/text Windows Live Messenger platform. So I don't think it's about that. And yes, I feel sorry for the Skype staff today -- I don't think this move bodes well for them at all. Their competence may not be what Microsoft is looking for here.
And as for other reasons, the paying customer base (compared to the non-paying WLM user base) of Skype could perhaps be attractive to Microsoft. Keep in mind that Skype is running with losses despite all these users, though.
In the end, taking all these thoughts together, I can only imagine that this is a risky move by Microsoft. I think they are hoping for awesome synergy effects from some forthcoming integration with their products. I assume something big, and no minor idea, since it needs to pay these $8.5 billion and more.
My first idea was integrating this with Windows Phone 7 (8? 9?) to get phone calls at data rates, but I have no idea how they'll going to get the providers to accept that. That would be a feat as grand as Steve Jobs getting the music companies to sign on to iTunes back in the days, if not greater.
Otherwise... Hmm, someone mentioned Xbox or Kinect integration to communicate with others with these devices... Well that's a thought but why shouldn't they be able to just implement that feature with their Live network? Write a WLM client for these - done. No $8.5 billion wasted.
Not sure if there are other ideas about where MS may be going with this?
All about the mobile... (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically skype seems to have a *whole* lot of traction/brand recognition. MS wants to control that to prop up their struggling mobile phone play (read: screw over iOS/Android/etc users). Torpedoing Linux support will probably be just side-effect.
My hope is that MS has the causative relationship reversed. Skype is ubiquitous because they endeavour to work on all devices. If Skype becomes an Xbox/Windows/Windows Phone play, I expect their subscriber base to evaporate.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft already has the technology necessary in their own audio/video/text Windows Live Messenger platform. So I don't think it's about that.
Skype:WLM::YouTube:Google Video
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, you may be right and you just reignited my IT bubble fears... :-/
What it means for Linux users... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the press release itself: "Microsoft will continue to invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms." However, this is Microsoft, and we know how they operate. This is unlikely to be anything but a ploy to avoid objections from the authorities to the purchase. Once it is too late to stop it, I predict not a single update will go into the Linux and Android versions, and the Mac and iPhone versions will lag behind in features. So the question is what alternatives there are now.
Another question is what Google, Facebook and Cisco will do now. If I were on the board of any of them, I'd certainly be pushing for pooling resources to create a joint venture to compete with Skype on all fronts. Could set up quite the consortium for the money they intended to spend buying Skype themselves.
Interesting times.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For the millionth time: Google Voice is only available in the US and no expansion moves have been noticed for years now. Not even to Canada.
Skype is on the other hand a true global company. You can use it in pretty much any country to make phone calls to any other country.
There is no comparison. As far as I and most of global population are concerned, Google Voice does not exist since we can't use it.
hmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect this is a preemptive strike by MS to stop Facebook snagging Skype, ...
I view this as the real investment. It's not to get any synergy from Skype but to prevent what could happen to the Windows Live platform if FaceBook were to assimilate Skype. Once they have Skype, they are going to let it burn, in my opinion.
I may be blind.... (Score:2)
But, I just don't see it....
What are they going to do, integrate it with Windows? Use it as a protocol as part of Office Communicator? Office Communicator uses SIP though (Funnily enough for MS an external standard), so unless they are going to gateway it.... At this point, it just makes more sense to buy a license to the protocol, and not the whole company. Flip the coin to the other side of the fence (To the customer side) and do you think they want to have their bandwidth used as part of the P2P network
two words.... (Score:3)
Patent Portfolio.
This looks like a move to BLOCK Facebook and/or Google expansion into this area. And when either of these companies move in anyhow, out come the lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing that Microsoft is buying (as far as I can see) are a lot of users, a license for some P2P software, and some video chat software which pretty much duplicates what Microsoft already has.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that the core of Skype which was joltid was settled....
It is, from: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=35489567 [businessweek.com]
"eBay Inc. and Silver Lake Investor Group Settle Skype Litigation with Joltid Limited
11/26/2009
eBay Inc. announced that the investor group led by Silver Lake, which had previously entered into a definitive agreement to acquire a majority stake in Skype from the company, has reached a settlement agreement with Joltid, Ltd. and Joost N.V. that g
Microsoft or Facebook? (Score:2)
I characterized this as a choice between the "old evil" and the "new evil" (fully acknowledging my bias against both companies...) Would the /. community be more comfortable with Skype as a Facebook product?
This is good news. (Score:2)
This is good news if it means Facebook and Google not buying it. I'd much rather have Microsoft own them than risk my privacy with Facebook and Google.
Maybe it won't be so bad. Hotmail isn't half bad since Microsoft bought them (was a Hotmailer before it was Microsoftized).
Those guys at Skype are amazing (Score:2)
First they sucker eBay into buying them for a lot of money. Then eBay eventually figures out that it was a mistake and sells it back for chump change.
Now they've sold it M$ for even more money. The folks in Redmond will phase the management team out in a year or so (but they're happy and rich so they won't care.) Then they'll let the product drift for a bit and eventually it will be assimilated into their portfolio of OK-to-mediocre products and become part of the load of crap softw
MS reputation so bad-forced to buy customer base? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't forget that many, if not most of Microsoft's most successful products started out as acquisitions. That includes Office and IE. So buying a product and Microsoftizing it is nothing new for Redmond.
Another thought: Skype/VoIP built into Cars? (Score:3)
With the Microsoft/Ford collaboration, what if Microsoft built Skype into the next version of their car software?
Could Microsoft be looking for a 'great convergence' of voice between cell phones, computers, cars, TVs/consoles (Xbox), etc? They have the smarts, but do they have the business vision to pull this off? And if they do, how open/closed would the resulting system be?
SIP (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia says:
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is an IETF-defined signaling protocol, widely used for controlling multimedia communication sessions such as voice and video calls over Internet Protocol (IP). The protocol can be used for creating, modifying and terminating two-party (unicast) or multiparty (multicast) sessions consisting of one or several media streams. The modification can involve changing addresses or ports, inviting more participants, and adding or deleting media streams. Other feasible application examples include video conferencing, streaming multimedia distribution, instant messaging, presence information, file transfer and online games.
*That's* the alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia says:
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is an IETF-defined signaling protocol, widely used for controlling multimedia communication sessions such as voice and video calls over Internet Protocol (IP). The protocol can be used for creating, modifying and terminating two-party (unicast) or multiparty (multicast) sessions consisting of one or several media streams. The modification can involve changing addresses or ports, inviting more participants, and adding or deleting media streams. Other feasible application examples include video conferencing, streaming multimedia distribution, instant messaging, presence information, file transfer and online games.
*That's* the alternative.
People are on skype. Skype doesn't interoperate with SIP, therefore skype has no alternative. If you want to talk to someone on skype, you need skype. Setting up skype for your average home and mobile phone is a matter of visiting skype.com, or your app store, and running the one file. Within 10 minutes grandma is talking to her grandkids in Australia (and other kitschy scenarios)
Setting up sip on your average home and mobile phone?
Agreed. Firewalls are THE issue (Score:3)
--Coder
office integration to lock in new users (Score:3)
microsoft hopes that integrating a popular voip plugin with office will add more users to the group that say things like, "we need to have an exchange server?".
wild theory (Score:3)
Here's my wild-ass conspiracy theory. I'm gonna link back to this post if/when it's proven true.
Skype discovered that Apple's Facetime violates their patent(s), and MS bought Skype so that they can sue Appple and cripple the iPhone. This improves Windows Phone's position in the marketplace (which, BTW, finally gets a skype client thanks to this deal).
Goodbye Skype, we hardly knew ye... (Score:3)
Skype just locked in its place as the next Internet Explorer: Microsoft's attempt at locking-in users. Time to find a real standard for this sort of thing.
Re:Question.... (Score:4, Informative)
Wow - all the Linux people spreading the FUD this time around. Ever stop to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, MS is buying it for the tech, looking to expand on what's already there, being able to use their existing infrastructure to better the service, while adding it to the Xbox 360 (and future consoles), all the while, continuing development of all the versions already existing?
Or are all you Linux fanbois just gonna dump Skype because it's owned by MS now, and you're leaving due to "principle" - i.e. being retarded?
Just look at their past record [wikipedia.org]. Maybe that strange guy in the park with the prison tattoos really has a puppy in his van.
Re: (Score:3)
Or are all you Linux fanbois just gonna dump Skype because it's owned by MS now
They won't have to: Microsoft will likely dump the Linux version anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Remains to be seen what they do with the cross platform versions. Microsoft don't have a history of playing nice, ever. I don't even use voice/video chat apps, but this would be enough to make me at least look for a backup option to be on the safe side.
Disclaimer: I don't like Windows, and I don't particularly like MS, but my levels of pettiness have dropped to where I have bought an Xbox (but with the intention of mostly renting the games, or buying at budget prices).
Re: (Score:3)
all the while, continuing development of all the versions already existing?
If it doesn't make them money MS would be unlikely to continue development of a Linux version. I would not be surprised if the Linux version is not all that profitable for the work that would have to go into it vs. the revenue realised by it (Skype Out etc).
Supporting the competition is something that MS doesn't do lightly. Begrudgingly they have Office for Mac and really that's about as far as it goes these days.
I would say that the Android Skype is reasonably safe for now, since inter-operability there
Re: (Score:2)
Well, continued development of an own product for Linux* would be something completely new for MS. They haven't done that before and there may even be considerable legal concerns about patent-related language in some open source licenses for libs that Skype on Linux ultimately depends on. If they happen to be very unlucky they may lose the ability to threaten with patents againt Linux. They certainly do not want that.
Plus, there are not that many customers on Linux, relatively speaking. So they'll certainly
Re: (Score:3)
Previous history teaches us to be wary. Fool me once, and all that.
The point is that if you've been reliant on an awful lot of things that MS has bought out in the past, you've come unstuck - usually not long after they bought it out. I put a list on The Register already and I can't be bothered to go find it and paste it back in.
And even if true, then the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Watch what MS do. Based on past personal history, I predict that a lot of people who *aren't* complaining and c
Re: (Score:3)
This comment deserves better than the negative moderation points it's received. It's a valid point. The idea of adding Skype to Xbox 360 is interesting.
Now I plead guilty to the charge of disliking anything with the Microsoft brand on it, I'm not sure that makes me 'retarded', just prejudiced. This is why we ignored the Ford Fusion Hybrid when we were looking for a new car last year.
Re: (Score:3)
Or are all you Linux fanbois just gonna dump Skype because it's owned by MS now, and you're leaving due to "principle" - i.e. being retarded?
Having principles is the same as being retarded? Really? I don't even know if it is possible to live without principles - unless you are a psychopath, that is.
And I'm not even a "linux fanboi" (more of a solaris/BeOS "fanboi").
Re: (Score:2)
Contact your senators and congressmen and ask them to stop this
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Grants Ballmer (Score:4, Insightful)
How? It's not an antitrust case. MS doesn't have any presence in the VoIP arena (at least as far as I know.) There's not much to do about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) [wikipedia.org]
"The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately"
Basically, once skype is carefully accidentally closed to all but win7, and MS is the monopoly provider of win7, skype will be tied to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Skype is but one of many-- albeit one with more sunken capital and assets-- and its functionality can be replicated easily. Microsoft could exclude Linux or even Apple users. That would be silly of them.
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there, and some of them are browser-based rather than P2P. So there is no monopoly-- not that this reason makes Microsoft any more holy. It's more added value for Microsoft. Others can add similar value and reap those benefits, too.
Re:Grants Ballmer (Score:5, Insightful)
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there
But your grandma only has one one of them: Skype. Due to the network effect, Skype has an effective monopoly on free phone service. While the barrier to entry in this market is technically low, in the real world filled with real users it's probably insurmountable. It looks like Microsoft thinks that the barrier would take at least $8.5B to overcome; otherwise they'd go with their normal instinct to just copy other vendors' technologies.
Grandma isn't going to want to unlearn Skype and learn how to use a sluggish Flash-based solution, either.
Re: (Score:3)
They have huge marketshare, but a monopoly is a different thing. By their presence, they don't have a barrier to market. This is an important distinction. There are great apps (I like ooVoo) that do the same thing. There's a larger user network, and it's become the de facto VoIP app-- not one that was awarded through monopolistic behavior. It's good. But not unkillable/unstoppable by any stretch of the imagination.
Re:Grants Ballmer (Score:5, Insightful)
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there
Due to the network effect, Skype has an effective monopoly on free phone service. While the barrier to entry in this market is technically low, in the real world filled with real users it's probably insurmountable.
Yeah. It's lilke MySpace. I sure wish something would come along to improve on MySpace. But hey, what ya gonna do? They're entrenched.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft is buying a huge user base. They need it, because their own efforts at getting a big social community have otherwise largely failed. Google has one, Apple has one, now Microsoft's bought one.
If this spawns great FOSS VoIP and P2P media distribution infrastructure, so much the better.
Re:Grants Ballmer (Score:5, Informative)
Even MSN has a mac client. So does Office.
If Microsoft is trying to get into de VoiP business, they might as well keep aiming at the largest number of platforms possible.
I do believe MS is not trying to get Skype per-se, but their architecture. The common mortal wouldn't know, but Skype has proprietary encryption that still has not been beaten (Russia even wanted to ban Skype), distributed supernodes that make their network really cheap to run (compared to other kinds of architectures) while still working flawlessly over cascading NAT's, for example and a really good VoiP codec (revolutionary, really, it was the first real contender for a PC phone).
With buying skype they'd be getting a whole lot more than business.
Re: (Score:3)
Abandoned years ago.
But "Where's the Internet Explorer for Mac?" is akin to "Where's the dung for my sandwich?"
Re: (Score:3)
wait for the bad deed to actually occur before screaming about said bad deed.
Ordinarily, yes. However, in Microsoft's case, they have a demonstrable history of leveraging their "monopoly" to prop up their offerings in other markets ultimately dominating those markets, reducing consumer choice, then leaving the product to stagnate with no other real alternative. IE6 is the premier example of this. They tried to do it with Java but Sun managed to stop them. Personally, I like real competition. The mobile device industry is on fire right now with newer and better products coming o
Re: (Score:3)
How is buying a voice over IP product and tying it to windows using their monopoly to bolster offerings in other markets?
The succinctness with which you answered your own question is almost Koan-worthy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Grants Ballmer (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem lies in the fact that trying someone for "potential crime" opens a HUGE can of worms. Where do you plan to stop? Pre-emptive fines on speeders? Pre-emptive jail sentences for people with history of domestic violence going to a martial arts course?
We have no punishments for thought crime, which is what you describe is about. They can think about crime all they want, but it's the ACT itself that's criminal. Not the thought. Even if precedence of such behaviour exists.
What we do have is harsher punishment for REPEAT OFFENDERS. That is the main consequence of repeating the same crime twice.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire antitrust argument is based on one assumption:
That Microsoft will limit Skype to only run on Microsoft products.
While MS have been assholes in the past, the entire argument hinges on this. If the Linux/OSX/iOS/Android/etc versions all remain and are useable...seriously, who gives a fuck who is running the show.
Now, if they become assholes again & make Skype MS-only, then you have a case. But really...I doubt Microsoft is so fucking stupid to open themselves up to another piece of antitrust
Re: (Score:3)
I'm calling the police to have them write you a ticket for speeding, because you own a car, and I feel like you might speed, in fact, you've probably gotten a ticket of some sort relating to vehicles in the past demonstrating a history of illegal vehicle use, so waiting until you actually speed to write you a ticket it a waste of time. All police should do this. Just imagine how great it would be when police are able to actually ticket people BEFORE the offense. Next, we should just throw people in jail
Re: (Score:3)
Could it be an issue if they were to stop making a linux client?
Then they could be using Skype (and it's lack of availability for a competing platform) to strengthen their operating system base and weaken a competing OS.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm torn as to whether Microsoft or Facebook buying Skype would be worse. Facebook buying Skype would definitely be worse for privacy and what little is left of communication openness. Microsoft would slowly make Skype Windows-only using EEE tactics and would probably try to tie it into Xbox Live (I know it doesn't make sense, but Microsoft doesn't make sense).
If a megacorporation has to assimilate Skype into i's collective, it should be Google. There will probably be some Facebook-like privacy consequences
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt Microsoft would make that kind of mistake. Say what you will about their technology divisions, but no one doubts the prowess of their lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's no different then the people constantly begging Adobe for Creative Suite or Valve for Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
back into the US crypto fold.
The simultaneous online connections count "typically 20-30 million online at any one moment" will get the NSA ip/voice print mirror.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/05/wsj-microsoft-to-buy-skype-for-7bn-rest-of-world-for-real.ars [arstechnica.com]
Whats in this for MS? Next gen lcd top HD sofa chat?
Re: (Score:2)
OpenOffice was open-source. As such it still exists elsewhere and (I don't think it's harsh to say) the original OO, from the community, to download numbers to feature support, is dead.
Skype is closed-source. There isn't any way that it could continue without the owner's support.
You can only "wipe out" something that isn't open-source. Most of Linux, and most of the "big apps" on Linux are open-source, and hence have been pretty immortal up until now.
Dropbox isn't open-source (from the server side). Thu
Re: (Score:3)
Ip addresses aren't a suitable replacement because there is no gaurantee of their persistance and not every system even has one. Plus they aren't really any easier to remember the phone numbers.
A user@hostname system like with email, skype and in principle* SIP could work for PC to PC calling but isn't very practical for anything involving a standalone phone with a normal phone keypad.
* in practice everyone seems to set up dialplans to use SIP with standard phone numbers and locally defined internal numbers