Microsoft Kills Skype For Asterisk 271
Avalon73 writes "I've been using Skype for Asterisk (Digium's native Skype client for their PBX software) since it was in beta 2 years ago. Today, I received an email from Digium stating that Skype (read: Microsoft) has decided to end the agreement that made the integration possible, and Digium will stop selling the module on July 26th. Support for us existing users will be there for the next 2 years, with Skype's option to renew at that time, but I'll believe that when I see it. So much for Microsoft's promise not to screw over the existing Skype user base."
Microsoft and Skype (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, I was just gonna post that.
I foresee a world where Skype is MSN-ified into uselessness.
Alternatives?
Re:Microsoft and Skype (Score:5, Funny)
Alternatives?
Facetime? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the guys that hate that are usually the same kind of person that are uncomfortable with the idea that conversations are logged and that you are allowed to think a while before answering.
Re:Microsoft and Skype (Score:5, Informative)
Alternatives?
Google Voice :)
There, fixed that for you .
GV is already integrated into Asterisk.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Only if you do not mind sucking Steve Jobs dick.
I don't mind at all.
-Sent from my Iphone
Open standards? (Score:2)
The only thing SIP is really lacking is NAT traversal, right?
Re: (Score:2)
With a halfway decent router and properly configured sip devices, you can traverse NAT just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "halfway decent". Can I do what I could do with Skype? That is, can I connect from behind pretty much any NAT router to anyone else in the world behind pretty much any NAT router of their own, using a central service only for control?
Re:Open standards? (Score:4, Informative)
End to end communication when both endpoints are behind NAT is a tricky problem. I don't know the skype protocol, did skype actually solve the problem, are the sessions truly end to end, NAT to NAT without the central server doing any proxying?
SIP by itself cannot solve the problem when both endpoints are behind a NAT without specifically forwarded ports, but it does work well when properly configured and only one side is NAT'd, which is classically the case with any protocol.
Halfway decent is hard to define. If it works, it's halfway decent at the minimum, heh. Most of your off the shelf consumer linksys, netgear, etc routers will handle passing sip just fine. Every so often you may run into a box that just fails miserably.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Microsoft and Skype (Score:5, Insightful)
More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.
It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.
Or (Score:5, Insightful)
More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.
It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.
Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.
Or... (Score:5, Funny)
Or disgruntled people among the executive ranks of Skype knew that people would come up with conspiracy theories by playing such a hand and are now cackling as not only do they walk away with millions but get to see Microsoft painted as the bad guy yet again!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft paid over market value because most of that big pile of cash they are sitting on was made out side of the US and they can't bring it into the US without paying taxes on it. That is why the calls for bigger dividends are being ignored.
So the game plan is to buy some thing out side of the US that may boost the value of some thing with in the US. That way they can avoid paying taxes. There aren't that many large companies that fit the bill. Skype based in Switzerland fits the bill nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.
Yes im sure MS were so concerned about protecting that great image they have in the eyes of Asterisk users that they paid way over market price just to protect it.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.
Yes im sure MS were so concerned about protecting that great image they have in the eyes of Asterisk users that they paid way over market price just to protect it.
I think you've misconstrued the quote you've replied to. Dropping Asterisk support post-acquisition might very well have an effect outside the intended market for Asterisk integration. Much of the Mac userbase for Skype is already up in arms over the Skype 5.0 interface, and fear that MS might drop Skype's support for platforms that MS does not control is broadly based.
However, protecting Skype's reputation with Asterisk users (or Mac users, for that matter) might be the reason for insisting this be done be
Re: (Score:2)
Er, why would that have anything to do with costs?
Re: (Score:3)
Asterisk competes with Microsoft's Lync. Most likely they're planning on making Skype only compatible with Lync to add another piece to their web of vendor lock-in.
Embrace, Extend, Extingush (Score:2)
Asterisk Kills Microsoft For Skype (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would be much more fun!
No no no no NOOOO
You wasted a perfectly good joke there .. you should have said something like
Asterix [asterix.com] Kills Microsoft For Skype
Re:Asterisk Kills Microsoft For Skype (Score:4, Funny)
Asterix and Obelix killing Microsoft would be fun and enjoyable indeed.
Quick to blame Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's Slashdot, and they're Microsoft. Duh. You're right of course. At this point not even sucking up to the potential new boss by killing some program he probably won't like doesn't even make sense. There are enough regulatory and other hurdles between here and "Microsoft takes possession of Skype" that doing any kind of actions based on that assumption is silly.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Considering the timing of the announcement, and Microsoft's business practices in the past, I imagine there's plenty of reasons to suspect Microsoft's hand in the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think the purchasing company has no influence over the company they're buying? They can make specific upcoming business decisions paramount to buy out! You have no idea whether or not Microsoft had something to do with this decision. I can't help but wonder why you think you do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, while the deal is pending, Microsoft is legally prohibited from exerting influence over Skype. Until the deal goes through, Microsoft has less influence over Skype than they had before the deal.
You don't mess with the SEC.
Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
You and I don't mess with the SEC. Large financial institutions and significant corporate donors to political campaigns do whatever the fuck they want.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the fact that you made this post.
I hate it because ... its true, and thats where we are.
I really wish we (the entire world, its not unique to the US) we just a LITTLE less selfish on the extreme ends. A little selfishness is a good thing for the species, competition helps, but we really just need to nop off the top few percent of the greediest that cause this sort of problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't mess with the SEC.
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Microsoft has no say at all?
You act as if you've never seen someone sell something expensive before. The buyer usually has quite a bit of say in how things play out...
Asterisk users (Score:5, Funny)
I guess both of you will have to run windows now.
Re:Asterisk users (Score:4, Funny)
Well, I dunno, I know a lot of people that use asterisk.
I mean, it's on everybody's keyboard, see -> *
Re: (Score:2)
For real? Asterisk is extremely pervasive from what I've seen. The only place it's NOT pervasive is among hobbyists who a) have no need for a PBX type system and b) have no idea how to get it to interface with anything interesting.
Hint: google voice uses asterisk.
Re: (Score:2)
For real? Asterisk is extremely pervasive from what I've seen. The only place it's NOT pervasive is among hobbyists who a) have no need for a PBX type system and b) have no idea how to get it to interface with anything interesting.
Hint: google voice uses asterisk.
Asterisk is often used as a replacement for expensive vendor PABX's in small businesses that can afford a full time sysadmin. When 20 user key systems can cost upwards of $7K with no support, free* seems cheap.
There's even a drop in replacement with a usable GUI for people with little knowledge of Linux/CLI (Asterisk Now IIRC).
* free isn't free, but a sysadmin's time is cheaper then a Siemens consultant.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess both of you will have to run windows now.
Actually, Asterisk does [asteriskwin32.com] run on windows, very nicely thank you.
This is bull (Score:2, Informative)
Plausibility (Score:2, Informative)
This is Skype running as Skype, completely independent from Microsoft.
Unless you work for one of those two companies you cannot possibly know that.
Any interference at this stage and scrutiny would be an infraction even Microsoft wouldn't risk.
Having been involved myself with a few mergers and the negotiations thereof I can definitely say that it is definitely plausible that Microsoft would have requested killing the product. I have no idea if they actually did and no proof either but it is certainly possible and wouldn't be terribly surprising. Such conditions can be explicit parts of the deal or they can be simple verbal requests. It's not at all unusual for compani
You can still pay for SIP (Score:2)
SIP still seems alive and well [skype.com] though. They get a monthly revenue stream from that though; seems a slightly safer option for Skype users wanting interoperability.
Typical jumping to conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering just how much existing VoIP crap (including Microsoft's) runs over SIP, has anyone considered that it's possible that Skype simply decided to kill off the third party hack and focus on building native SIP connectivity? It would certainly jibe with their sudden desire to look more appealing to business users, with the ability to plug into virtually any IP-PBX solution in existence (and let's be honest, in the corporate world no-one runs Asterisk).
Funny, if Google had bought Skype and this same thing had happened, people would all be describing it as I just did. But hey, don't let rational thought get in the way of your hate-fest.
Re: (Score:2)
Convicted habitual criminals are rarely popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you've never actually tried to integrate SIP stacks. The hurdles, workarounds, configuration, and general nightmare still end up unworkable far too often. SIP is very flexible -- which means it's not necessarily compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you get your info from, but asterisk is extremely pervasive, either as a complete replacement for phone systems (small business) to OEM'd interfaces (too many to count) to partial replacements for portions of existing calling systems (a similar way to how Linux crept into IT infrastructure). Hell, tons of those offshore call centers are based around asterisk and its queue features.
Re: (Score:2)
Skype for Asterisk is far from a third party hack. It was designed around the Skype Engine API, at a time when Skype was not providing access to that API to the general public (I think they still aren't providing that level of access). In fact, Skype approached Mark Spencer (original programmer of Asterisk), not the other way around. So while the integration was largely written by Digium programmers, the Skype connector has always been a direct project of Skype's.
As far as Google's communication protocol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How inter-operable is it with standard SIP?
They have a long history of the 3Es.
Re: (Score:2)
How inter-operable is it with standard SIP?
They have a long history of the 3Es.
Fairly. It's been a while since I played with their stuff, but it is pretty easy to make things work. They have some freaky things in there (or did), but so do a lot of people. SIP is a kind of nightmare where people are *encouraged* to extend it in new and unusual ways. Writing a SIP client/server is a bit challenging because everybody does everything differently. Occasionally a new spec is barfed out and then half the people move over to that. But this just makes your job harder because you now have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which actually proves the point rather effectively. Skype could simply have decided that their native SIP offering was sufficient to meet the needs of IP-PBX users and to kill off the duplication to avoid confusion. Asterisk is compatible with SIP endpoints after all, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea ... well, except that MS announced they were killing their own product a few months back.
Can someone explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
Always a risk with proprietary data formats (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take an image of the machine and create a VM. Then create lots of copies. Now you are as good as immune to any but the worst disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe the OP you replied to even mentioned one word about Microsoft in any way.. so I'm pretty sure it was YOU that just made an ass out of yourself...
Re: (Score:2)
LoB
I will begin moving my clients off of skype (Score:2)
im doing this, to prevent experiencing usual microsoft bullshit like one regularly encounters while dealing with them.
enjoy your new acquisition micr
Re: (Score:2)
enjoy your new acquisition microsoft. without me and my clients.
Yes, they're really going to miss your $30/year... assuming you even buy that.
Re: (Score:2)
Its hard to think there are 'web developers' still that don't realize how easily they can be replaced.
Its funny that you think you're so special you can tell your customers what they have to do. Well, I suppose you can tell them what to do right up until they are no longer customers.
Good luck with that.
business 101 (Score:2)
Seriously, some people need to realise that microsoft is a BUSINESS. Asterisk = compete with Lync. Skype = now microsoft owned. Why the hell would they continue development of one of their products to help kill another one of their products?
Is this crap for asterisk / asterisk users? Yes. However Microsoft would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to their shareholders if they were to continue killing the market for their own product(s) by enabling/maintaining it.
"Read: Microsoft"? (Score:2)
The deal isn't even close to completion yet, so why again am I supposed to read Skype as Microsoft when they are making moves like this?
This has to be some of the most apparent anti-Microsoft slant I've ever seen on Slashdot to date, and I've seen quite a bit of it. Please don't troll in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I see a lot of this crap for a number of different subjects, but this was just one of the most direct and unsubtle I've seen in a while. I'm not sure what you're suggesting with the "M$-goggles" comment though. Are you implying I'm some sort of Microsoft apologist or shill?
The problem here is there is nothing to really indicate that Microsoft is "indirectly influencing operations" regardless of the legality involved. Just because Microsoft is currently in a deal to purchase Skype doesn't mean everything
What about Obelix, did he want Skype dead aswell? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase. Particularly of paying customers. I use skype for linux. I am not part of the majority, and when they drop support for linux and change the protocols, guess what: I'll be a screwed customer. Customers are not only the majority slice.
Re:Dear God (Score:5, Informative)
not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase
Yes it does.
Customers are not only the majority slice.
No, but the customer base is. Hence the term base, as in the most substantial part; not the fringe elements or corner cases.
Actually the userbase is all of the users.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/user+base [reference.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That definition is cited as referencing "The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, (C) Denis Howe 2010 http://foldoc.org/ [foldoc.org]" whoever that is.
And Mr. Howe seems to have taken liberties with the root word of base, which means "the fundamental part of something." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/base [merriam-webster.com]
Moreover TFL says "This change should not affect any existing users of Skype for Asterisk," which doesn't conflict with your cited definition.
In other words, all your base are belong to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Up until now, this form of use has been an option for users. Whether they partook of it or not.
Now it is being removed as an option.
Therefore, if any given user of Skype attempts to exercise this option in the future, they're screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a foreshadowing of things to come, and hence why is so upsetting (Ive never even used Asterisk, honestly).
Re:Dear God (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Dominance? Seriously?
The only people who use Skype are people too cheap to pay for a real phone call. No one anywhere that matters uses Skype to communicate. It may dominate the 'shitty VoIP services' market, but again, no one cares.
VoIP over the Internet is a retarded plan until the network infrastructure has proper QoS support, until then its a crap shoot while you hope that congestion doesn't ruin the call or disconnect you.
Re:Dear God (Score:4, Informative)
I find it hard to believe that you're not just trolling. But on the off chance that you're not...
My company uses Skype to conference call with overseas clients. It's nothing to do with the avoided cost of a 'real' phone call (which is insignificant compared to consultant time) and everything to do with universal availability, video conference ability and ease of use making it a better option than a 'real' phone call.
Re: (Score:3)
>>>it certainly doesn't affect the majority. Stop crying over spilled milk.
By this logic, you will keep your mouth shut when Mickeysoft stops supporting Skype for Linux or Mac OSes. Correct? (Somehow I don't believe you will.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like what is so special in skype? Is it that hard to code another one?
Skype was the first to get good market adoption and thus sort of became the de-facto standard so there is a good chance that you can use it to speak to someone. It might not be the best, but it works well enough for most people to not feel the need to change (with all the effort that that entails). In some ways it is like MS Windows, the de-facto desktop standard, not the best but good enough for most people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that easy. I seldom use Skype to communicate with friends and never with relatives. I use it mostly for business, to get in touch with my customers and my coworkers (both chat and voice). I can't tell them that they have to start using a new messaging platform only to communicate with me. It will be very inconvenient and they'll invite me to call them with a phone which will cost me money and I'll still be left without a chat. They'll hate to have to spend money to call me so this is bad for my bus
Re: (Score:2)
You may rest assured that in those 2 years you will not receive any updates whatsoever, neither for security nor compatibility. Whether you will be able to renew or not is also something you may start to believe once those 2 years are over.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you will, Digum has support contract (which is the 2 years they are covering) which require security fixes as part of the contract.
You may not get any new features, but the whole reason people PAY for support contracts is to ensure they will get support for a minimum period of time. The contracts define that level of support. Digum's support contracts are pretty good (I've admined a asterisk setup for a small company), I expect they'll take good care of their customers in the interim and use this as a
Re:How are you screwed? (Score:5, Insightful)
which is a life time in terms of technology
A lifetime in terms of computer technology. In terms of phone technology, where you might install a phone system and not really touch it for 10 years... 2 years is very short.
Phone lifetimes (Score:2)
"In terms of phone technology, where you might install a phone system and not really touch it for 10 years... 2 years is very short."
And your typical big telco equipment has a lifetime measured in decades.
And modern POTS lines are more-or-less backwards compatible with phones from 1930 or earlier.
The computer industry could learn a thing or two here.
Re: (Score:2)
Phone tech still moves pretty damn slow.
By all rights we should be on the final phases of replacing VOIP with whatever would follow.. as it stands we arn't even really at mainstream VOIP yet!
Re: (Score:2)
Phone tech still moves pretty damn slow.
That's what makes it possible to use my perfectly good sixty year old telephone, so I'm okay with that.. This 'new' way of doing things, requiring hardware upgrades every two years sucks balls.. My seven year old computer can barely play youtube videos. And when I load up a Slashdot page, I have time to go make and wolf down a sandwich. This is not good if you're trying to stay on a diet..
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, I watched the WTC collapse on a live video stream on my cable modem because we didn't have cable TV at the time. From a technology perspective the only thing thats changed to me is that my laptop runs longer ... and hotter. I still pretty much do the same stuff (and I'm a developer) at about the same speed. The Internet is supposedly faster, but I really can't tell. I'm sure, my cable modem max speed has went from 3mb/s to 10mb/s but for the most part, 3 was just enough to do pretty much eve
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, they just sealed their fate, at least as far as any future phone systems I might install. I had been delaying buying chan_skype for Asterisk since they hadn't made it advanced enough to handle some of my needs for Asterisk but now it looks like I just saved myself a whole lot of $$$, and redirected even more that would have gone to Microsoft. I'm really glad they made this decision for me now rather than later.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please,.Windows ME was not a bad idea. It was designed to kill off the Windows 9x line so everyone (users and developers) would move to XP. How much of the software that failed on ME would also failed on XP had developers not been forced to remove their assumptions of being able to load drivers in config.sys and autoexec in real mode DOS?
Microsoft Bob was a product of its time. There were a lot of attempts by many companies to make computing easy for non-techy people by mimicking real world objects. It a
Re: (Score:3)
When Microsoft came and said 'We're going to buy you for more money than you deserve multiplied by about a hundred ... Okay? Good, now, if you want us to continue with this deal, you listen to us from now on ... now kill the Skype projects like the good little bitch I just paid for'
Its rather ignorant to ignore the fact that the high level people in Skype are probably talking fairly often to their future bosses ... if you have ANY SENSE what so ever you do what they want because if you don't, they either ba
What's the problem? (Score:3)
If you can't connect Skype to SIP, why do you need it?
But you can connect Skype to SIP: Skype Connect for SIP [skype.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's why this has happened before MS has any operational control of Skype because the merger hasn't finished yet.
This is exactly like the time when my sister blamed me for turning off her coffee pot while I was still an hour's drive away from her place.
Keep grinding that anti-MS axe though, perhaps one day you'll use it for something useful.
Bad analogies and merger discussions (Score:2)
Yes, that's why this has happened before MS has any operational control of Skype because the merger hasn't finished yet.
Even if it was not a formal part of the deal, Skype is perfectly capable of reading the tea leaves regarding what direction Microsoft intends to go post acquisition. They have been talking to each other after all. It's perfectly plausible that Skype killed the product at the request (possibly implied request) of Microsoft. It's equally plausible it has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft. However the timing does lead one to wonder. It's not at all unusual for companies to start making changes in ad
Re: (Score:2)
part of the nokia deal? Keep it running on symbian and on wp7.
Re: (Score:2)
"Before this thread I never even heard of Asterisk before, and after this probably never will again."
I'm guessing you have never done anything with telephony.
Re: (Score:2)