as 99.5% of the world aren't "hackers" and quite like the idea of calling people on the other side of the world for free, perhaps the success of Skype shows your ideals are out of touch with the world around you. Who, then, is more likely to be wrong?
Ideals aren't about convenience, that's why they're ideals. While I love Skype, I can appreciate the fact that it's stifling innovation and killing interoperability, since you can't use it with SIP...
It's as if we had email, and then a proprietary protocol which everyone used. Countless services would never have been created.
EDIT: Wait, this just converts your SIP phones to work with Skype, it doesn't allow you to call other SIP phones. E.g. I can't use it to call Truphone/Gizmo users with it. It's a two-tier phone service, same as IM clients. This is why the GP's ideals are a good thing.
Would you enlighten me how it is supposed to call Truphone/Gizmo unless the owners of those services specifically want to connect them trough SIP gateway? Is Skype supposed to go out and find every standalone SIP setup in the world and connect to it?
My point isn't about what is popular, it is about what is right.
anyways I don't like making predictions, but I can't see skype lasting 10+ years if they continue to pursue a closed architecture. it just will not happen.
What is most uncomfortable about skype to me is the fact that they are the single provider of their service; for example if you wanted to use another service you wouldn't be allowed to use that other network to contact a skype user. This is an example of a choice I consider to be wrong.
I can't see skype lasting 10+ years if they continue to
pursue a closed architecture. it just will not happen.
Because? I am amused by this silly attitude that open === good and viable. Always. Just because it is "right" for whatever definition of "right" is.
The reality is that people don't give a damn, open or closed it is as long as it works and gets job done.
Skype (in terms of the functionality it offers) is basically a branded form of SIP VoIP.
You can obtain similar functionality using a generic SIP VoIP account purchased through a reseller .. which will be free from the negative restrictions mentioned.
Skype isn't SIP, Skype is a proprietary P2P protocol. Which is one of the reasons it works so well going through firewalls etc. - Skype had to make it work and could change their implementation at will. (Although most of the magic was already in KaZaA/FastTrack, which the Skype P2P network was based on AFAIK)
Okay, a good point - but does Skype offer much more than you can obtain from a SIP account?
My understanding is that there's a benefit to choosing SIP over skype, because the technology is interoperable and non-proprietary.
I suppose, my point is that people don't need to rely on Skype to be able to call people for free. In my opinion, Skype isn't the only - or even best - choice.
Skype is easier to set up than SIP, doesn't require firewall configuration, or server addresses. You install it, create an account, add people to your list, and insert money when you want to call a POTS line.
not sure why you're being downvoted on this, you bring up a very good point.
Facetime on iphone 4 uses open standards including SIP, STUN and ICE. These are mature p2p technologies heavily used and deployed and are the same used in xmpp jingle specifications.
open standard p2p already won this battle which skype will persist to fight.
Okay, fair enough - a proprietary solution isn't forced to compromise or be subject to approval from standards bodies or general consensus.
However, I'd argue that the fact Skype might work well with firewall's isn't _because_ it's proprietary. An open-standard could work just as well; it would take more effort and time to achieve it, but I think it would be worth the extra effort because the benefit would be more universally felt.
In my opinion, this shouldn't be a primary reason for preferring a proprietary solution over an open standard. If it was, Microsoft's early efforts to introduce proprietary tags into HTML markup wouldn't have been so universally deplored.
