12 ms·
Skype lies, breaks "Skype-to-Skype"calls are free promise
- cookiecaper 16y agoI guess I don't think it's that big of a deal. When Skype promised "free Skype-to-Skype", I don't think they considered that they would eventually be used on smartphones. It'd probably be smarter if they'd just charged a few bucks from the app first place, though. This may also be a condition imposed by Apple, because people with unlimited data plans would use Skype instead of their (limited) included airtime, which I'm sure doesn't make cellular partners too happy.
- jallmann 16y agoBut does Skype via 3G actually cost them more than a WiFi call? Assuming their calls still use the data network, it's not like they have to buy and maintain gateway equipment. I don't see how the smartphone issue is relevant. I agree though, that this move may be more political than anything else w.r.t cellular partners.
- jonknee 16y agoIt doesn't cost them anything more, but I bet it means more usage. It's a lot easier to have Skype always in your pocket than just when tied to WiFi. I think they foresaw a future when data-plan only phones make all their calls "for free" through Skype.
- iamdave 16y agoI'm intensely curious who's pulling the strings behind this, is Skype really to blame or is it the mobile carriers putting pressure on them to collect more ARPU by creating yet another fee to collect from subscribers.
- sukuriant 16y agomy bet is on the mobile carriers putting pressure on them, especially AT&T. The last I checked, Skype was still plenty free for Verizon. In fact, it seemed like Verizon and Skype took time to make sure their system worked wonderfully together, forcing local calls to go through Verizon themselves, international to have the option of going through Skype, and Skype to Skype going through a special phone number. In fact, I just tested Skype on my Motorola Droid on Verizon's service. It works wonderfully and said nothing of a soon ending of the free service.
- jonknee 16y agoIf it was the carriers, Skype had all the hand--no one wants to hear that their carrier wants to make you pay more money. They could have announced that carriers were looking for ways to try and get you to pay but that Skype told them they wouldn't play ball. Instant win. This stinks of a money grab on Skype's behalf.
- ryanhuff 16y agoSkype was sold for multiple billions of dollars. The purchasing group must have seen some untapped opportunity to generate revenue that eBay was not able to effectively address. So, I think its realistic to think that this turn of events is tied to the purchasing group's revenue strategy, and not carrier action. With that said, if this ends up only applying to AT&T, and not other countries iPhone apps, then its clear who's to blame. I didn't see anything in the article that noted this was limited to AT&T.
- papersmith 16y agoMost, if not all pay-as-you-go plans have an expiration date.
- evanwolf 16y agoSkype will break its freemium promise to Skype users in three months. Skype for iPhone will require a subscription to make Skype-to-Skype calls over 3G/Edge starting in September 2010 according to Skype. This changes things from "Skype-to-Skype calls are free", which they've been saying since launch, to "Skype-to-Skype calls are free over landlines and Wi-Fi unless your Verizon or Three mobile operator subsidizes your service." Skype has no marginal cost if I make that iPhone 3G call. Why are they charging separately? Presumably subscriptions will apply to future use of Skype-to-Skype on Blackberry, Nokia, and Android phones.
- stcredzero 16y agoSkype has no marginal cost if I make that iPhone 3G call. If I were AT&T and I could start charging Skype for 3G calls, I would do it.
- ericz 16y agoShouldn't net neutrality prevent AT&T from charging more just because Skype uses a certain part of the internet?
- kgermino 16y ago'Net Neutrality' doesn't exist yet. A least not officially. However if/when (probably when) it does pass it would probably prevent ATT from charging skype more to route phone calls over thier network.
- sukuriant 16y agoThis isn't a net neutrality issue. This is a 'people are circumventing our system through our system and we need to stop them', as well as a "our networks are HEAVY LADEN with traffic because of all these smart phones we didn't quite have the infrastructure to support. We need to start clamping down a little" issue (I imagine)
- masklinn 16y ago
- dc2k08 16y agoWhen I bought my last phone nearly three years ago, the selling point was that pre-installed skype app worked for free over their 3G network and skype to skype calls were free. Skype out calls were barred though. I presume this new charge only applies to iphones? If it is the case that Apple badgered them into applying a charge which some are suggesting, I presume this information will leak at some stage. Won't be good PR if true.
- bbatsell 16y agoI can think of absolutely zero reasons, technical or otherwise, that Apple would want Skype to charge for only its iPhone software, much less a reason strong enough to "badger" them into charging. Isn't it far more likely that Skype's new buyers see that they need to begin to monetize their largest usage stream in order to survive, especially since that usage stream has started to migrate to more "usable" platforms?
- loyaltyspace 16y agoWhat a sensationalist headline. So what if they've introduced charges? If someone else provides this for free, go there. If not, cough up!
- arbitraryperson 16y agoBut they gave me their word!
- OoTheNigerian 16y agowhere?
- Frazzydee 16y agoIt still says so here: http://www.skype.com/intl/en/security/safety/safe-payments/ http://www.skype.com/intl/en/security/safety/safe-payments/ "Skype-to-Skype calls will always be free but there are a few things that cost a little such as calling mobiles and ordinary phones when you want to get hold of your friends that havent started using Skype yet."
- OoTheNigerian 16y agoOk. That's much better. When people maike claims, it is always good to put evidence. The discussion would have been different if that was put there. But I believe charging is the only was that network operators will allow Skype to work at all. It would be good if they explained it that way.
- zmmmmm 16y agoI agree, it's outrageous. I say you are entitled to a full refund!
- freescale 16y agoI agree the sensationalist headline. The moderators should delete this submission. Inflammatory headlines do nothing to encourage discussion.
- johnrob 16y agoI lost any trust for Skype the first time they emailed me that I had 7 days to use some credit or they would confiscate all of it. How is that not theft?
- pdx 16y agoThat was discussed here, probably when you brought it up last time. It's the same reason that gift cards expire and properly written NDA's have time limits. Nobody wants to owe somebody something until the universe dies, especially accountants, and especially if the people to whom that debt is owed, are dead or have forgotten about it. It would be insane to carry it on your books until doomsday.
- yafujifide 16y agoSo maybe they should give cash rather than credit.
- mr_november 16y agoI disagree with this, it's entirely possible for vendors to honour gift cards (and credits) indefinitely. In fact, here in Canada, in most provinces, if not all, it's law and has been for some time: http://www.gov.on.ca/mgs/en/News/133713.html http://www.gov.on.ca/mgs/en/News/133713.html
- what 16y agoI was looking for that. Business make boatloads from unused, expired gift cards.
- jws 16y agoThe problem comes in the accounting. Try borrowing X million dollars against 2X million in assets when you have 4X outstanding debts that can be called in at any time. Sure, they probably won't be, and you might discount them to near zero, but the lender won't be so generous.
- 16y ago
- riobard 16y agoI'm wondering how long Skype calling in fring <http://www.fring.com> http://www.fring.com> will remain for free.
- paul9290 16y agoUpon seeing this I am contemplating canceling AT&T service - keeping my iphone and get a Verizon or Sprint MiFi router and use Skype to place the calls, as well use my Google VOice number to ring my skype in number. I use my GV # now anyway so I can just forward it. I dont talk on the phone that much more so text, facebook, email and twitter. Im not sure im going to do this but it's tempting even more when skype will be able to run in the background on my 3GS when 4.0 comes out. I would save myself $10 to $20 a month doing this. THe MiFi I can carry in my wallet.
- cabalamat 16y agoI'm not bothered by this, because it's their funeral. There are other VoIP programs, it's not particularly difficult to write one, and with Android set to dominate open-architecture 3G phones, something else will dominate VoIP. Hopefully, something open source and using an open protocol. (SIP?) Oh and if you bought an iPhone and can't access the cost-free VoIP solution? That'll teach you to buy locked-down hardware, you idiot[1]. 1: this description does not apply to people who took an eyes-open decision to buy locked-down hardware, knowing it was locked down, realising the consequences and accepting them.
- bruceboughton 16y agoCan you explain what this has to do with the iPhone hardware? Skype is charging for this, not Apple or the telcos, right?
- masklinn 16y ago> Can you explain what this has to do with the iPhone hardware? Nothing, cabalamat is just hating.
- cgranade 16y agoFar from it. If Apple has an off-switch for any potential competitor to AT&T, which any VoIP provider is, then the only way for another VoIP provider to take on Skype on the iPhone is to have enough market share outside of the iPOS garden to make it too costly for Apple to hit the kill switch.
- dalore 16y agoWhat are some good alternative providers?
- kanak 16y agoGizmo5 used to be a good alternative, and got purchased by google.
- 16y ago
- Yaggo 16y agoNot fair. I pay my operator a monthly fee for mobile data (10 € for unlimited 384 kb/s including two SIMs / devices, to be exact). Skype pays for their incoming/outgoing data – it doesn't cost extra for them whether the data is originated from mobile network or <any-type> network. Skype is simply not justified to charge extra based on client's connection type, not even if I used Iridium network to route my bytes to them. Maybe Skype has grown big enough to behave as asshole and they know it.
- sjs 16y agoSkype-to-skype is cool but when you're tethered to a computer and internet connection it clearly has limited to value to most people. Now that phones that run apps and have internet connections are popular the game is changed entirely. They had to give it away for free before because it wasn't as useful. When you can use this on the go it becomes much more useful and they will see many more people using it. When things change that drastically sometimes you have to re-evaluate your business model.
- Yaggo 16y agoThen moneytize transparently, i.e. based on true costs. Charging for skype-to-skype calls is fine as long as clients are treated equally whether they were using dial-up, wifi, satellite or avian carriers. The type of client's connection is as unrelated as the color of his/her socks.
- hartror 16y agoPeople always seem to think that things are priced according to the cost to the supplier, that is wrong. Goods and services are priced to what the consumer will pay for them. Skype are providing a service and people are (they hope) willing to pay for the convenience of having it on their phone. Welcome to the free market.
- Super_Jambo 16y agoThings in efficient markets ARE priced according to the cost of the supplier. But most markets are not efficient. This is not the fault of the customer.
- pixelcort 16y agoDoes this have anything to do with a potential difficulty in establishing direct connections between Skype clients that are both on 3G networks? Are they running relays for these clients that they are trying to recuperate from?
- stretchwithme 16y agowas it a promise to be free forever? or just one of their features, which they are free to change whenever they wish?
- milkshakes 16y agohttp://www.skype.com/intl/en/security/safety/safe-payments/ http://www.skype.com/intl/en/security/safety/safe-payments/ Skype-to-Skype calls will always be free
- stretchwithme 16y agoyep, it does say that quite clearly
- stellar678 16y agoThis probably has to do with whether or not a device is able to participate in Skype's p2p call routing. If being on 3g introduces too much latency or has too limited bandwidth to contribute in the network, then each client will have a marginal cost to Skype. Maybe they're trying to ensure they can keep up with that. Or maybe they're just grubbing for money.
- gsiener 16y agoInteresting point. Though I thought I read recently that their planned switch to SIP would end p2p functionality.
- neonfunk 16y agoFrom Skype's perspective, how is the cell network different from any other ISP? It's the carriers who will shoulder the burden; and there's no indication that any of the fee is going to them, given that Skype says "operator fees may still apply". I don't get it.
- viraptor 16y agoIt's many times more useful to use Skype on your mobile. If you're on 3G, it means you have no access to desktop Skype. And if it's more useful to you, they can charge for it.
- neonfunk 16y agoThe extra usability is a function of the carrier's network, not anything on Skype's end. And since many of us are already paying our carriers for data plans, why should Skype arbitrarily charge us a second time? I still don't get it.
- viraptor 16y agoIt's pretty straightforward and not very "nice": > why should Skype arbitrarily charge us a second time? 1) because they can; 2) who's going to stop them (definitely not carries who gain on that agreement)
- neonfunk 16y agoNo one's going to stop them from doing what's within the law; that's a given. I'm saying it strikes me as unethical, and it assumes a certain infancy in the public's tech acumen... which perhaps there is! But it still seems like a poor assumption to base a business on going forward. Now I'm just hoping someone comes out with a iChat/AIM/Jabber/GTalk-like P2P standard for voice (does this already exist?).
- viraptor 16y ago
- adrianscott 16y agoI think they started lying earlier when they offered 'unlimited' that isn't really unlimited, but subject to a so-called fair use policy. I would call that 'virtually unlimited'. FTC, where are you??
- bdfh42 16y agoSkype not playing honest with their customers? Hardly news is it? I dropped them several years ago because of basic dishonesty on their part.
- moolave 16y agoSomewhere, some company will level the playing field on this feature. It's happened to phone companies, why not on this app?
- RabidChihuahua 16y agoSkype mobile is really a different kind of product. If they want to charge for it they are entitled. Phone calling is getting cheap enough as is.
- ephealy 16y agoI was already considering a full jump to Google Voice. This may seal the deal.