Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

SkypeIn Reaches Beta Users

Posted by Hemos on Sun Mar 13, 2005 08:21 AM
from the skype-to-the-island-skye dept.
Communications Announcements IT
galdur writes "Skype quietly released a new 1.2 beta featuring SkypeIn (in US, UK, France, China & Hong Kong), central voicemail (for those not using the free 3rd party SAM or Pamela), and finally centralised contact list. SkypeIn is the opposite of the company's SkypeOut, allowing you now to receive normal telephone calls through Skype."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

SkypeIn Reaches Beta Users 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Import tools - odd choices (re changelog) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CdBee (742846) on Sunday March 13 2005, @08:25AM (#11925494)
    Why on earth would they support collecting/importing contacts from Opera but not Mozilla/Thunderbird?

  • what are they aiming for? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by virtualone (768392) on Sunday March 13 2005, @08:25AM (#11925497)
    i think they are trying to puch the commercial skype platform in favor of an open standard, like enum. the great ease-of-use combined with well-thought technology (nat traversal, codec) may very well succeed, if there is no open source alternative established with the same features.
    • i think they are trying to puch the commercial skype platform in favor of an open standard, like enum. the great ease-of-use combined with well-thought technology (nat traversal, codec) may very well succeed, if there is no open source alternative established with the same features.

      No, marketing is the magic word. If you have big bucks to spend on marketing, you're much more likely to succeed. Open source projects generally don't have any money at all, so they are always behind the commercial ones. Why i
    • Agreed, Skype aim to lure us into lock-in with their "free lunch". Their closed and proprietary ways are reason for concern.

      Yet there is nothing Skype does that OSS doesn't match or beat.

      Ease of use? Take a look at the Firefly softphone which supports both SIP and IAX2. It's just as easy as Skype.

      P2P? Take a look at E164.org or DUNDi. Those don't require an organisation that finally calls the shots and can hold us all for ransom one day.

      NAT Traversal? Skype's protocol has to use the very same bad hacks

      • Re:OSS not only matches but betters Skype (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dangermouse (2242) on Sunday March 13 2005, @11:41AM (#11926357) Homepage
        Let's review.

        On the one hand: Skype is easy to download, set up, and use; supports every major PC platform and is cross-platform compatible; offers free calls (with no recurring fee) to other Skype users; and offers extremely cheap calls to POTS phones.

        On the other: Firefly is single-platform and charges a minimum of twice what Skype does for POTS calls; you didn't mention a softphone that actually uses E164 or DUNDi, and there's no reason an end user should give a damn; ditto that last point for IAX; again for Speex; and I can't find any information about what free interconnects are available, if any, at vonage's website or at firefly's or at FWD's (and FWD doesn't even provide POTS service)-- and interconnects don't matter to me anyway, if my friends are all using Skype.

        So I could just grab Skype and have other people grab Skype and we can all use it. Or I can fret and worry about implementation details I don't have any real reason to care about, and pay more for the same service or try to cobble together some frankensolution on the cheap, which nobody else will be able to use with me.

        I think I know which one I'm gonna go with for the time being.
          • I downloaded Skype. It took me about five minutes, and it was free. I don't give a shit about (a listing of all the acronyms/abbreviations/insert pendantic wankering about the aforementioned two that you mentioned):

            SIP, IAX, NAT, UDP, ILBC, TANSTAAFL, OSS, FWD, POTS, VOIP

            Skype works. Skype has a remarkably mature and usable client for Mac OS X, as opposed to all the OSS/FLOSS/FOSS/GNU/shit solutions that use hideous X11-based clients for the sake of "interoperability."

            You remind me of a man who tried

  • what about national regulations? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xlyz (695304) on Sunday March 13 2005, @08:26AM (#11925503) Journal

    It will be interesting to see how they will deal with each national telecom regulations.

  • Oh God, finally! Skype, welcome to the twenty-first century.

    /Pedro

    • Skype is one of the few who is aiming to provide this kind of service and actually being able to pull it off. It's simple to use and to setup, and it "simply works" as they say. Open-source supporters may be quick to wave it off since Skype are using their own closed standards. But the fact remain, no open source alternative has yet been adopted by any company who will provide this kind of service. Sure , skype isn't perfect. Their 6 month credit limit (before they eat your paid money) is questionable. Bu

      • If you do much calling, especially to other countries, BroadVoice [broadvoice.com] seems far, far better. You do need a broadband connection. You do not need a computer. $25/month for unlimited calling to 35 nations. NO per minute charge. You get a telephone number in any U.S. state.
        • I just setup an Asterisk [asterisk.org] PBX box (Fedora) and got myself a Broadvoice account with a local phone number. Where as Skype uses a proprietary protocol, even most SIP based providers don't allow you to use anything but their 'locked' phone/adapters. Broadvoice happily suggests you 'bring your own device', and plays nice with Asterisk.

          I just put together a little python script running against Asterisk through AGI (Asterisk's CGI) which pulls weather data from NOAA's site based on a zip code you enter, and speak
          • You're a stronger man than I. After a week of puttering with Broadvoice and asterisk (and getting no help from Broadvoice, which is fine since they didn't claim to offer asterisk support), I gave up and went with a la carte incoming and outgoing services (still via asterisk).

            I never managed to get asterisk to complete a SIP registration with Broadvoice's servers, or to complete an outgoing call.
            • Broadvoice's config details are misleading, and Asterisk itself can be a bit arcane at times. However check out this wiki page [voip-info.org]. The "Second example" is actually mine. I've spelled out a bit more clearly what each element is, and used the terminology that BV does for the elements, as well as removed some superfluous elements that don't even do anything. I know of several people who couldn't get it working before tried it, and haven't had problems since.

              Oh, and then there's the "Broadvoice patch". It used to
  • Bring back the free Dialpad!
  • For a lot of people, this will be the big missing piece that makes Skype useable for everyday stuff. I was turned off when I realized you couldn't get regular calls to your Skype phone number. (I was also turned off when I realized you had to pay for SkypeOut, but that's just because I hate paying money).

    I'm curious how they interface with various telecom companies. What numbers do you call to get to a Skype number, etc.

    • Re:This is good. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Looks like it'll cost 30 for a year to get a number. That's crap, there are much better deals about (for UK numbers at least) such as sipgate (completely free to recieve calls!) and babble (£10 for a permenant number I believe).
    • Two approaches - either they reserve a bunch of numbers and you get one of them (unlikely) or there is a single number and you get an extension.


      In either event you can expect to be paying for the incoming calls unless they happen to use a premium number. I'd also assume that it will cost more than making outgoing calls.

      • In either event you can expect to be paying for the incoming calls unless they happen to use a premium number. I'd also assume that it will cost more than making outgoing calls.

        Maybe in Skype's case, but not always. I'm currently using a program called Stanaphone [stanaphone.com] which has a real US phone number with completely free incoming calls. I've been using it for a couple of weeks and have not given them any credit card information. Outgoing calls are done just like Skype with a calling card model and cost about
        • I live in the UK and have family in the US. I now have a US based SkypeIn #, unfortuately not in the state in which my family live. I pay the (15% VAT inclusive) 11.50 euro for three months, they pay for calls to my US number. I also use SkypeOut to call them at 1.7 eurocents/minute.

          To quote from Skype's own help pages "The SkypeIn number is a regular phone number so any charges that might regularly occur from calling a number in that location still apply."

          So, no premium calling, no extension number , mo

  • Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Cisco Kid (31490) on Sunday March 13 2005, @08:56AM (#11925609)
    The missing piece for me would be the ability to use a standard telephone, with an ATA (eg like the SPA-2000) with their service. I have no interest in using a PC soundcard (however hi-fi it may be) as a telephone.

    • Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)

      by bloxnet (637785) on Sunday March 13 2005, @09:07AM (#11925653)
      There are a number of Skype compatible phones. Some plug into your USB port and are similar to normal cheapie handsets. There are also cordless phones, most of which are dual landline/Skype compatible.

      Check the Skype website for a starting point for examples, then hit Froogle.
      • I dont want a 'Skype compatible phone'. I also dont want anything that 'plugs into a USB port', or relies on a PC in order to work.

        I dont want to have to buy any hardware. I already have a SPA-2000, and I want to use a *normal* telephone.

    • Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Spoing (152917) on Sunday March 13 2005, @09:39AM (#11925804) Homepage
      1. The missing piece for me would be the ability to use a standard telephone, with an ATA (eg like the SPA-2000) with their service. I have no interest in using a PC soundcard (however hi-fi it may be) as a telephone.

      Do you want something like this? [chat-cord.com] It's cheap, provides a standard RJ-11 phone jack, and supposedly is compatable with just about any VOIP service out there. I haven't heard any complaints about it.

      The only gotcha is that it *does* use the sound jacks to do the conversion to/from RJ-11 plus a USB port for power only (no data). The result is that you can use any standard phone and do not have to use an analog headset or buy a much more expensive ethernet-to-RJ-11 converter.

    • Get yourself that Sipura and sign up with FWD, it's free, no lock-in and it's based on open standards.

      http://www.freeworlddialup.com
      • I already have the SPA. And I've played with FWD already. Afaik, it doesnt offer any way to obtain a normal number for PSTN phoke to call you on.

        At the moment, I have a commercial VOIP service that lets me call anywhere in my state for ten bucks a month. They also have a $20/mo plan that gives you unlimited calling to the entire US, Canada, and a dozen or so other countries.

  • China & Hong Kong? (Score:4, Informative)

    by cynix.org (811368) * on Sunday March 13 2005, @09:04AM (#11925642) Homepage
    The article incorrectly states that SkypeIn is available in "China & Hong Kong". It's only available in Hong Kong, not mainland China.
  • I'm a fairly big Linux person.

    I run nothing but Linux on my desktops, and I purchased a Powerbook about 6 months ago.

    I know my way around computers. I can take them apart, put them together.

    I've futzed with non-supported and almost supported hardware for a long time.

    I'll be damned if I can get a SIP solution that will work anywhere near as well as Skype.

    I want it on my Mac.
    I want it on Linux.
    I want it to traverse NATs with (at best) minimal setup that I can describe to someone over the phone.
    I want it on Windows. And I want the Windows version to talk to the other versions.
    I'd prefer an easy install (no mucking around with text config files), so that I can point other people at a download, and have them install.

    I've even tried to come up with some kind of similar solution myself, create a package my friends/family could download, but it just isn't possible to do with the current 'open' solution.

    So I point them at Skype. They can download it, and install it with no problem.

    The ONLY time they ever have problems is when they forget to plugin the microphone, or plug it in to the wrong port.

    These are not stupid people. These are well eductated, and generally economically succesful.

    But they only have a modicum of computer knowledge, and when push comes to shove, they can get Skype working.
    • Keep in mind, skypein is not compatible with linux.

      They SAY latest version, but what they actually mean is latest windows version. What you actually seem to need is 1.2 or greater and linux is, so far, only at 1.0.0.7.

      Still an amazing client tho. I use it for almost all my IMing in linux. Everything is very strongly encrypted (rsa 2kbit to auth and exchange aes-256 keys) The chatting has some really nice features like, near unlimited characters in your messages, the ability to send the same file easily to

  • Plain Old Interop (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday March 13 2005, @11:26AM (#11926283) Homepage Journal
    This is a real breakthru. Not just for Skype users, but for everone - and most importantly, for SIP users. Because until now, Skype was a noninteroperable, proprietary "standard" protocol. Now that any phone can connect to a Skype phone, either in or out, it makes no difference that the protocols are different - they interoperate. Sure, SIP server APIs might be more open, so call control and a galaxy of new features - some perhaps useful only to a tiny nice of users distributed around the Net - will be more available to SIP users than to Skype users. But that means SIP and Skype can compete on features, rather than just price. Which will force not only Skype to open their API more to compete better, but also SIP companies with closed APIs/ports, which will need to compete with Skype. Writing to two server APIs will be frustrating, but better than nothing - and the extra market competition benefits will likely be worth it. Skype had been a troublesome island, out of reach to developers, splitting the VoIP platform too much at its early stage of development. But now it's joined the party, and we can all connect.
      • Their closed API is "evil". But it's just as much an obstacle to developing call features as is the closed POTS API that nearly everyone uses for our phones. That means that Skype is now exactly as much an obstacle, technically, to VoIP development as is POTS. Which better not be much of an obstacle, because then VoIP has no chance. Skype remains an obstacle to VoIP only by siphoning some VoIP market into its inferior (nonexistent?) development platform. But, as I pointed out, the superior features of SIP (
          • I don't think you're paying attention to my actual point. I'm saying that Skype joining the interop means Skype opening their APIs, and their protocols, and anything else needed to get developers to add value to their product, to compete in the market. I'm not differentiating between their APIs and their protocols, because the distinction is irrelevant to the point I make, to the watershed change inherent in their move to interop at the level of POTS.

            You're mad because their protocols are proprietary, frus
              • I'm not talking about signs of opening. I'm talking about being forced to open by competition. Before universal access via Skype, they could hide in their disconnected island. Now they have to compete with other "it's just a phone" companies on features as well as price, because those other companies' calls will be completed. Unless you can explain how Skype will compete without offering more features, and how they can hope to keep up with the variety of features offerable to even specialty niches of a few

    • Re:Opensource alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Qwavel (733416) on Sunday March 13 2005, @09:43AM (#11925823)
      In this case I'm more interested in open protocol alternatives. That would allow multiple clients (including open source ones) to compete.

      Skype is not all bad - they do provide a Linux client - but the proprietary protocol is a big problem.
      • Skype, being owned by a private company, seems to be headed down the road of trying to lock in as many people as possible. All well and good, but the standard is closed (as you said) and the current Skype CEO is also the co-founder of Kazaa, Niklas Zennstr. He obviously has no qualms will malware or spyware since he ok'd the company that bought Kazaa from him ( now a notorious spyware bomb) to come bundled with Skype sometime around Nov of 2004.

        This will hurt VOIP in the long run because it will sap any op
    • Example: Talking between skype users is free. One of the permanent staff at my university I work with talked to her husband while he was on business for about a month with skype. They would spend over 3 hours per day talking, and they got to do that FOR FREE. And she's a non-techie to boot.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.