Skype Officially Available For Android 286
After a lot of speculation,
Arvisp writes "Skype has released an official Android version. It allows calling via 3G and WiFi." One step closer to the carriers being just... carriers.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Skype Officially Available For Android
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis
At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
At last! but how soon are carriers going to block its traffic?
Re:At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in some random Asian country, over 3.5G I routinely see 200+ kilobytes per second. No caps, unlimited, all for about $27 USD per month. Technology is not the problem here.
I've just done a speed test on my phone (at speedtest.net) and got an impressive 1.59Mb/s (200kB/s). (Or is that normal? I have no idea, I've never done this on my phone before.)
The trouble is, at lunchtime I couldn't browse the web, since everyone else round here (London, but about halfway out from the centre) was evidently trying to do the same. Presumably this is a deficiency with the network (Orange), but it's not something I researched before signing up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Japan is pretty random sometimes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Meanwhile AT&T collects record revenue per iPhone subscriber while paying the least of all carriers on infrastructure (per subscriber).
So the solution is to not allow high data applications to go with these high cost data plans.
All profit and no cost. Aren't "free markets" wonderful.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think better to say "especially in NYC". It seems that the largest metro areas are among the hardest hit by this problem. Bandwidth issues on cell networks (AT&T seems worst affected, but all carriers are to some extent) seem to follow a bell curve with the highest and lowest population centers at either end. Mid population areas (like 500K-1 million people) seem to get the best service. I have quite a nice signal quality in Huntsville, Alabama; and when visiting Boston recently I was fine other t
Re:At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
If using more bandwidth costs the cell carriers more money, perhaps they should charge people for using more bandwidth. This is the only industry I've ever heard of where when demand exceeds supply, they simply refuse to increase capacity.
Quiz: If a bean farmer harvests 1 million beans per month, and they sell out the first day, which of the following would the bean farmer do?
A) Only sell beans to customers who use specific kinds of plates. This would limit the number of beans customers demanded to an amount they can provide. Since there is no way for the seller to know what kind of plates people have, they must pressure manufacturers of plates to enforce the rules. When pressed on the issue, complain that the only way to produce more beans would be to buy more land and seeds, which are expensive.
B) Buy more land and seeds and produce more beans.
Any reasonable farmer would choose option B. They would put together a plan, see how much more land they could afford to buy, and how many more beans they can produce on that land. For reasons beyond my understanding, telecom companies choose option A. They tell people that 3G has limited bandwidth, and limit their customers to using it for specific applications. But of course, 3G has no idea what application is using the bandwidth, so they make the software refuse to use the 3G connection even though it can use it and no one would ever know. Option B would be to build more cell towers and upgrade their bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when you can't buy more land or more seeds, or the cost of more land and more seeds exceeds the return on investment? Or perhaps, more darkly, what happens when you follow more-land-more-seeds iteratively and then the market for beans collapses?
I can only guess, but I suspect that adding cell sites isn't quite like plugging in low-budget wifi boxes around a large building until you can get a signal everywhere. Just siting the equipment can be a challenge, especially in a crowded and expensive
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did you get caught... between the moon and NYC?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that works it should also be possible to make Skype calls from an N900.
But transitioning from using cell providers' numbers to using Skype (or Google Voice) is hardly an improvement, although it could be a decent stopgap solution. The problem is it's still controlled entirely by one company. We need to transition to SIP, ideally using SIP URIs on a domain you control. That would make voice calling as free as email.
Re: (Score:2)
Last year before I got my Droid, I used pure voip/sip with gizmo over ATT 3g with my nokia e71. Quality was severely lacking though, not nearly good enough for regular use. Not sure if they throttled that traffic or what. Never tried it with symbian's skype client as that application just plain sucked.
One step closer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me introduce you to the wonderful world of pay-as-you-go data plans with an android phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
It really doesn't cost them that much. You act like they have to actually spend money on every bit they move. Instead they are using metered service as both a way to make profit off of their fixed expense and to social engineer their customers into not using too much of their fixed capacity.
I tend to view metered service as a scam. Like when you go to a car dealers
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem - everyone wants unlimited data at an unbelievably fast speed, for free. It's the same mentality that allows people to pirate movies, music, and software. Entitlement. I want it, why can't I have it? The law? Ha! I'll take as much as I can get and complain when it doesn't live up to my expectations.
Get ready for the long list of justifications like, 'It *should* be free and unlimited' or 'It doesn't cost them hardly anything!' or 'My phone has their stupid logo on it, that's free ad
Cool (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be interesting to see how this affects battery life. I love my Eris, but the battery life on the stock battery is pretty suck. Would something like Skype drain a battery faster than calling someone using the 'phone' portion of the device?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't measured power consumption during actual calls, but during standby the Skype app seems very well behaved. According to Currentwidget, my phone draws about 5mA during standby with Skype running... same as without Skype. :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depending on your distance from the tower and the access point, it could be quite a lot less. I've certainly had situations where I've had a very poor cell signal and strong wi-fi, and thus the wi-fi has been more reliable and more power-thrifty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but mostly during a call, and a tiny bit less when idle. When the phone is idle, the main CPU is basically stopped and drawing very little power. Having Skype in the background does nothing to affect this as it's also waiting for a control datagram and thus blocked waiting.
However, the phone may be maintaining a data channel waiting for the datagram to come - this can involve a bit more power from the modem to keep the channel alive, and a tiny bit of main CPU to handle higher layer data connection administrivia (keep-alives and the like).
But during a call, the power goes up a lot. During a normal voice call, the main CPU again shuts down as it's not needed for the most part and the audio is routed direct to the modem where it's compressed, encoded and sent over the air by dedicated hardware. Using something like Skype, however, means the audio has to go tot he main CPU, where the Skype application then encodes it into packets, and those packets are then passed to the OS (also running on the main CPU) as network data. It goes down the network stack, then down to the data port of the modem where the modem then packages it for over the air. But an active data connection also costs more power, and the main CPU is active during a VoIP call but idle during a normal voice call, both of which add significant drain to the battery.
If you're on the phone a lot, VoIP may require you to carry an extra battery. If you're like me who hardly makes a call longer than 30 seconds a couple of times per day, you won't notice the extra drain.
More detail... (Score:4, Informative)
Also, it's 9MB, there's a link to the .apk for those of us with metered data plans: com.skype.raider.apk [multiupload.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Skype official blog says 2.1 is required...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why no skype in Japan?
I see no such restriction after installing on 2 phones here in Tokyo....
Re: (Score:2)
A link to an apk on a random file hosting site?!? Seriously? If you did the same thing with an exe you'd be flamed and hung from the Slashdot rafters. It should be the same with an apk, but everyone seems somehow fine with installing apks from random places with who knows what nasty code buried inside. One of these days everyone is going to get pwned by one of these hosted apk files.
Just tried it and there's a big gotcha (Score:2, Insightful)
No 3G calling from the US---curse you Verizon!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
heya,
Why not try a VPN provider, like StrongVPN, and use it with your Android phone?
You should be able to tunnel VoIP/Skype through this.
Cheers,
Victor
access rights? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it asks permission for what you think it does. It's two separate things its asks permission to do:
1. Read and write contacts
2. Gain some sort of recognition in Android's auth system. It may be that it registers itself as an authentication method (kind of like your google or facebook login can be used to identify you elsewhere), or that it makes use of such authentication services, I didn't look too closely. Either way, it's nothing to worry about.
So we like open source, but not open protocols? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do the slashdot crowd rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because at the core, they're cheapskates. MS Office costs money while OpenOffice doesn't, so it's convenient to find other supporting reasons to hate MS Office. OTOH, they see Skype and think "free calls!" so all is forgiven.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because at the core, they're cheapskates.
Then why not rally against Skype, in favour of SIP? SIP providers can be much cheaper than Skype, especially for calls to mobiles here (Oz).
Most high-end Nokia phones support SIP over 3G just as well as a cellular call. N900 treats SIP, Skype and Mobile equally.
It uses g729, which is patent-encumbered but otherwise open, and there are alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Because at the core, they're cheapskates.
Then why not rally against Skype, in favour of SIP?
Amen. SIP providers have given me better rates than SkypeOut for years now. I keep Skype around for those who insist on using it to reach me, but I'd rather switch them to vendor-neutral VoIP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that we love closed protocols. We don't. We simply hate the phone company more.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, once the phone company is just a carrier, it will be so much easier to run open source VoIP products as the phone company won't try to actively stop us from using them. Having skype on cellphones gets us half way along that path.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do the slashdot crowd rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?
My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings. Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.
Therefore I implore you to blindly believe that MS be scum bags. As well as Darl McBride. And that most other creations of god are but meek.
Oh, and Skype has a very large installed base. So we want it. And then we will whine as soon as Skype takes advantage.
bringing it oldschool. (Score:2)
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, the closed and proprietary VoIP protocol enables people to work around price discrimination on closed and proprietary wires.
Re: (Score:2)
But surely there are decent SIP clients for Android? My 4 year old Nokia E Series can do native SIP voip calls over 3G or WIFI, integrating fully with the built in phonebook. I can select a number from the phone book and call it over the cellphone network or through my asterisk box at home. My cell phone can act as a local extension of the home phone system.
It doesn't do
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (Score:5, Insightful)
Skype is a lot like Flash when it comes to slashbots.
Before Apple said "no Flash on our devices" Flash was absolutely worthless and evil.
As soon as Apple said no Flash on their devices Flash was a saint in the process of being martyred by evil tech-heathens.
So in any other context (or previous threads) Skype is the epitome of the corruptness and wastefulness (OMG it uses bandwidth even when you're not talking!!!) of closed source. Now that it is available to the droidbois it is the symbol of freedom, sticking to the (telecom) man.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People here like to hang shit on nokia and symbian - but the nokia e-series of mobile phones have had working voip over 3g for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, I'm not sure "street cred" is the right phrase here. I think you meant "geek cred".
Street cred is what you get by shooting a man in Reno just to see him die.
Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do the slashdot crowd
If you're going to generalise all of slashdot as a single entity with a single opinion, why not ask yourself? You are part of it :P
rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?
Personally I'm not so much anti-closed as anti-suck. Closedness sucks politically, so I generally prefer open; but in this case all the other VoIP products suck technically and to a much larger degree
Well put (Score:2)
Good question: Why do Slashdoters care about a closed protocol on a closed platform?
Slashdot used to be a place where we made fun of people who wanted their closed protocols on their closed platforms. Now its a bunch of Apple fans and corporate apologists.
I've been using SIP and Skype and Jabber and etc on my N900 for months. Get a clue people!
I'm pining for the good old days. I must be getting old.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple used to be part of the "in" crowd here so you may not want the old "good old days".
I suggest the period right after the famous Nomad comparison. The Apple hate is nice and fresh.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Skype has two big advantages over SIP :
(1) Skype does not require the cooperation of sysadmins because Skype was built by people willing to break the rules. Skype just works unless sysadmins specifically fight it. SIP not so much.
Solution : We need slightly more expensive SIP providers that proxy your traffic when necessary for bypassing network restrictions and incompetent sysadmins.. as well as variations on SIP that use a Skype-like P2P proxy approach.
(2) Skype dramatically simplifies the installation
What's a good SIP client? (Score:3, Interesting)
I absolutely point-blank refuse to use Skype for exactly that reason.
So, what's a good VoIP client for Android? I have a legacy Gizmo SIP account I use with my Linux desktop.
I'm aware of IMSdroid [google.com], SIPdroid [sipdroid.org], Linphone [linphone.org] and Fring [fring.com], but I haven't seen anyone do a good comparative review.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding to this: I've used Skype once before, and I just installed it on my phone and it seems like it could be useful. I'd prefer to use something else though, if it does what I need it to do.
Where do I start with SIP? I'm not really sure what the possibilities are, or who (if anyone) I need an account with, etc. It seems Google offer some kind of SIP service.
I'd like to
1) be able to call another user of the same service
2) call UK numbers over my broadband connection (I'm in the UK, but my brick house block
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Don't you pay more for data traffic than you do for voice traffic? Skype can give you free VOIP but then you have to pay more to the carrier for the data traffic. About the only thing I can see this being good for is international calls, which usually aren't included in your free minutes you get in your plan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Interesting)
Voice traffic is very small when in a data format, and no, data is much cheaper. Assuming a megabyte a minute (which is probably on the high end), 5 gigs at $30/mo is 2000 minutes. My 1400 minute family plan is $80/mo.
I think this is why carriers are instituting data tiers.
Re: (Score:2)
Mega Fail, missed the edit button. 5 gigs at $30/mo is 5000 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it's pretty carrier dependent.
My "Family plan" is $60 ($50 basic + $10 extra phone) for 550 minutes; my data plan is 200MB for $15 (or 2GB for $25). Thing is, I have to pay $40-50 just to connect to the network - I've never seen a data only plan *for a phone* with more than 100-200MB/month, and they're usually about $60. It seems that its not the cost of data, but the cost of being always on the network (fixed costs).
Still, it's nice to have options. I recently was on a golf outing at a remote hotel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*shrug*
Let me preface this by saying that I'm 31 years old. I have been involved with computers since I was born. My first gaming system was an Atari 2600, and my first computer was a TRS-80 Model I with a Radio Shack cassette recorder, though friends variously had a TI99/4A, Atari 800, C64, or Apple ][. I've never attended college, finding formal education to be far too boring. I am not a Luddite.
And frankly, I don't know how any of that matters.
Moving right along:
I initially failed to see the hype sur
Re: (Score:2)
Depends where you're calling, someone in the same country, on the same network as you, sure. But someone on a different network in a country over the other side of the closest ocean to you?
Re: (Score:2)
3G calls... (Score:2)
...are only available to installations outside the US, I think.
But how do you quit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is how all of android apps work, by design.
Re: (Score:2)
ConnectBot
- explicit button in the menu to kill the current connection
- the "back" button quits the app
AndroidVNC
- the "back" button quits the app
Outlook mail client
- the "back" button quits the app
MapDroyd
- the "back" button quits the app
Google Maps
- the "back" button quits the app
Google "Talk"
- a button in the menu allows you to sign out, so . .
- the "back" button then quits the
Re: (Score:2)
So the bug is the absence of an easily accessible signout button, no that the app does not exit, the grand parent is right Android was designed so apps do not need to be closed by the user, because apps without background threads are not wasting resources, and apps must expect that the system will kill them if needed. Apps on Android that really kill the process are not following the Android way of work, but for some kind of apps that is right (games with exit button for example)
Google Talk process does not
Re: (Score:2)
With the exception of connectBot, all of those you listed do not in literal sense quit the app, or close it. You can just as well press the home button, with the exact same effect - the application in question will be kept in memory, and the process will not be destroyed, unless Android deems it necessary.
What IS true however, is that you cannot sign-off, thus Skype marks itself active, and Android will not attempt to close it (and free it's resources) like it should. But I've corrected myself about
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But most apps will let you press the back button until you're out of the app. This actually does save you some memory because the activity that was active will unload when you back out of it, as opposed to continuing to run in the background when you press the home button. Most apps that need to run in the background will have a service component that runs in the background, and a UI activity that lets you interact with it. If you kill the UI by backing out of it, the service component still runs in the bac
Re: (Score:2)
Well, two things - firstly the point of Skype is generally that you're available and logged in.
Sure, unless you just want to stop the application. There's a Quit menu on Skype on my notebook after all.
The fact that most applications don't terminate doesn't mean Skype shouldn't. It's nuts to need task killers because certain developers just couldn't be arsed to finish the job at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. Apps stay memory resident and let themselves be cleaned up by the operating system when needed, but Skype is a fair bit more annoying by keeping an icon in the notification bar (and for no real reason, even when your status is "offline").
It's a self-important move, which I expect will probably get fixed in time. I'm just happy that they've *finally* got around to making the app, it's been a long time coming.
And it's OK, except for a few bugs... (Score:2, Interesting)
... the most horrendous of which is the same one more or less all other Android instant messaging apps have:
After about 10-20 minutes of the phone idling, the app is just closed in the background. Notification icon stays put, so you don't notice it, but when you try to actually open Skype again, it starts up right at the login screen and procedes to log in again. Nearly all the other instant messaging apps I've tried also exhibit this behaviour: Meebo, Nimbuzz, eBuddy, IM+ 3.x...
Other than that it's not bad
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure this isn't actually a problem with your specific version of Android? Not that I've even tried any instant messaging apps on my phone yet, but some versions of Android are better than others depending on how much the carrier has screwed around with them.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using mainly Cyanogenmod based Desire ROMs, but I got exactly the same behaviour on my old Moto Milestone...I know it sounds stupid. but I get the feeling that most people just don't realize that the apps are no longer running - the notification bar icon doesn't disappear, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. It may have caused my touchscreen to start acting funny too, I ended up resetting my Streak and haven't tried the app again. It doesn't even have video calling, which was the only reason I installed it (had a whim to test out the video calling on my device, as I haven't tried it yet).
Re: (Score:2)
My Desire touchscreen got a little funky too, but a reboot solved that, and I haven't had the problem again even though I have the Skype app running again.
Actually thought it was a fluke...
Google Voice (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Allows calling via 3G and WiFi.
This was already available via the Google Voice app. It even has integration with the phone app to be the default method to make calls.
Re: (Score:2)
At least on any Android device I've ever used the Google Voice app does not deliver calls to your handset over VoIP, it delivers it by making a phone call from your handset to a special phone number (or by delivering a call to your handset FROM a special number).
Re: (Score:2)
Google Voice on Android does not provide VOIP. It works by first calling a google voice access number and then patching you through to the number you're trying to call. This can help for things like international calls, but it still uses up your minutes. Some plans have an option where you can make unlimited calls to certain numbers, and to the phone company it appears that you are just calling the google voice number again and again. So it can help you if you tend to max out your minutes to a variety o
Basque? (Score:2)
I don't always call my Basque friends from abroad., but when I do I prefer Skype.
"Mantendu egarri, nire lagun."
For those that are wondering.... (Score:2)
it doesn't work on Sprint's 4G network either, it really is just WiFi only.
This doesn't really bother me, since I generally only use Skype as a fallback if there's no cell service available to me at all, so really it's doing just what I want. For long-distance calling when I have a signal, I generally stick with Google Voice which works great over regular cell networks, but has no VOIP option yet on Android. Once Google adds wifi calling, I'll be pretty close to saying bye-bye to Skype for paid services.
What a fudgy turd (Score:2)
It doesn't work in landscape mode for several panels, so you get to rotate your phone manually. The stupid notification that won't go away is lovely, and there is no way to merge contacts. Also, 9MB? Seriously? Maybe later, but I doubt it.
It's just marketing, baby! (Score:2)
Skype not the solution (Score:2)
VoIP or Skype on a cell isn't necessarily the best solution. My findings with using the two extensively:
- Unusable voice quality while driving. To many breakups, jitter, total silence for like 30 sec
- Same for using it over 3G, even in an area with great coverage
- Performs great on wifi via cell but only if within very close range to one's router
- Voice quality using it on a PC with a headset/microphone is vastly superior than using Skype via cell; via cell isn't clear enough, yet doesn't filter out backgro
What, no SIP on Android?!?! (Score:2)
One step closer to the carriers being just... carriers.
Duh, SIP should already exist for Android just like it does for Symbian.
Skype is a halfbaked lock-in solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Skype is awesome. I used it every day at work (colleagues in China, Germany, UK and USA). I use it several times a week to stay in touch with family and friends around the country and world. It works on my Mac at home, my work PC, my iPhone and now apparently on my partner's Android-based Samsung phone. When I travel, I can be sure to find anywhere in the world it's available, without having to take a computer or phone with me. It's one of the cheapest ways to make international phone calls, or send in
App permissions? (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as I love the idea of an easy to use and ubiquitous VoIP application that I carry with me everywhere in my pocket -- insane 3G data rates and prorietary protocols notwhithstanding -- I have to question some of the permissions it's requesting.
Maybe this is due to me not fully understanding the Android permissions model, in which case I hope someone will clarify what these mean, but aren't these a little overreaching?
Read and write contact data - I assume this means the Skype app stores contact data in the phone's address book, but it also gives it access to all my other contact data (local or google contacts).
Coarse location - In my experience coarse location, when requested in heavily populated areas, is just as accurate as fine (GPS) location. Why does Skype need to know exactly where I'm standing in order to route my VoIP calls? The desktop application seems to do fine without it.
Act as an account authenticator, manage the accounts list, use the authentication credentials of an account - Does Skype use the Android accounts and sync framework, like a regular Google account does? And, like the contact data, I'm pretty sure this also means it has access to all the other Google account authentication credentials stored on the phone.
I'm pretty sure all of these permissions are requested for legitimate reasons, but from what I can understand it also means the Skype app has access to some pretty sensitive information, basically your whole Google account. Am I correct?
Verizon forcing it on LG Ally users (Score:2)
Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. (Score:5, Informative)
Your skype is the Verizon blessed and hobbled version. It uses Verizon voice minutes for the first leg into the cloud. Therefore it's only useful in saving on international long distance charges. This new Skype can use WiFi.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trillian for Android (Beta) [trillian.im]
Re:US only? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I had an abandoned Skype account, but I've downloaded the app and it works fine -- I made a test call over a very good 3.5G connection, I'll have to try somewhere/sometime else too see how it works with less-good connections.
My house is built the old way: thick layers of bricks. Phone signal is rubbish -- 5 bars outside, 2 right next to the windows, and 1 (if I'm lucky) inside. This looks like it could be very useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you have the wildfire whose screen definition is too low for the Skype app? Or you don't have Android 2.1?
I have a G1 running Cyanogen 6.? (i.e. Android 2.2) in France and could just install it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they must be doing some sort of model detection. I have just tried getting it on my brand new Toshiba AC100 (aka Android netbook) and it says Skype is unavailable for my handset... Ok it's not a handset, but I have a dual core 1GHz Cortex A9 CPU with a 1024x600 screen and a webcam all running under 2.1 so lack of resources is not the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If it does support video chat, that would make the yet unreleased Desire HD a lot less attractive. Somewhat outdated even before its release. A bit like my G1 released without 3.5mm headset output.
FWIW, I don't think video chat is support (no mention of it anywhere), but I suppose it should be coming soon
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily my homebrew ROM/OS has symlinks to a 2nd partition on the SD-card, which has been formatted as ext3, so apps think they are installing to the main memory, but since they follow the symlink, they install themselves transparently into that partition, and the main memory remains free!
(LeeDroid on HTC Desire, Google it)