6 ms·

The sad fact of the matter is most people do not give a hoot about software being open. I honestly do not think you stand a chance competing against Skype, it

• Semiapies 16y ago
  In the end, I think it's more important that the means of software production are open and freely available. This allows people alternatives to proprietary software that isn't insanely great - like Firefox helped a lot of people escape IE. If they've done nothing else, the FSF has accomplished that.
• chadaustin 16y ago
  Maybe true, but give them a chance at least... See firefox, inkscape as successful examples.
  • pclark 16y ago
    neither of those have network effects, they can thrive in oligopoly markets, I think that communication is a winner takes all (ironically why you want it to be an open standard, but such is innovation from startups)
    • thisisfmu 16y ago
      skype alternatives do have a (small) chance despite strong network effects. 1/ policy makers do not like running a third-party closed-source obfuscated binary with undefined behavior aggressively evading firewalls inside their business or country (in the case of China). 2/ the network effects are not nearly as strong as, for instance, ebay's. i do not care about being able to call random strangers on skype, only about my contacts. the scope of the network effect is to some extent that of a social group, not an entire market.
      • pmjordan 16y ago
        The network effects are (luckily) also not exclusive. There's no reason why you can't use Skype AND a SIP phone AND GNU phone software - the only time it's an issue is when you want to do a conference call. That said, if GNU want to win this one, they'd better not make freedom their main "selling" point. Skype's usability and reliability leave some room for improvement, and users might care about those points enough to switch.
        • tomjen3 16y ago
          Actually in this case they can win on freedom and they can do so by telling people that anybody can listen to their phonecalls (which is very likely true, almost certainly with a warrant) -- people care about their privacy (even though most likely nobody cares what they are saying). But more importantly Skype can fix the ux. They cannot fix the freedom issue (and if they somehow manage to do so anyway, great).
      • tghnjtghn 16y ago
        >only about my contacts So Alice has to install Google talk to call you, skype to call Bob and SIP to talk to Carol Meanwhile Bob has microsoft phone to talk to ....
    • mlinksva 16y ago
      Firefox and Inkscape have network effects, albeit more limited than Skype. The more people using Firefox, the more sites work with Firefox. Not a big issue now, but it was. And Firefox must have spread largely through word of mouth (actually anyone done research on how Firefox adoption did predominantly occur?). More people using Inkscape, more acceptable it is to use, and better it works with files one might receive (assuming Inkscape works a bit better with svg than with Illustrator or whatever that it must import), same for Open/LibreOffice (which definitely works better with ODF than OOXML). All software has network effects to some extent; a significant reason why using free/open source software is a matter of good citizenship, not just getting stuff done.
    • jerf 16y ago
      "I think that communication is a winner takes all" Which cell phone manufacturer has "taken all"? You seem to be basing your statement on the impossibility of interoperability, which is an odd position to take, at least if you actually think about it.
      • aaronbrethorst 16y ago
        Regarding cell phone manufacturers: that's not really the same thing. Phone numbers are universal. It's not like an iPhone user on AT&T can only call other AT&T users[1], or that T-Mobile customers can only call other T-Mobile customers. Skype limits me to reaching out to other Skype users. FaceTime only works with people who have bought into the Apple ecosystem. [1] Although one might suggest that these iPhone users can, in fact, call no one.
        • jerf 16y ago
          Ah, you got my point.
        • woodson 16y ago
          Well, that's due to rigorous standardization. Think about the speech codecs etc. used in mobile telephony. It's not like a phone number gives you anything more than an IP address does.
          • deleted 16y ago
            [deleted]
    • phillco 16y ago
      Actually, browsers do have network effects. If you're not important enough that web developers test their sites against you, you are going to suffer. See Opera.
  • mootothemax 16y ago
    See firefox, inkscape as successful examples. Yes, but do you remember surfing the web in the days between Netscape 4 and Mozilla being launched, and quite how horrible it was for anyone with a technical mind who just wanted to be able to, e.g., debug some Javascript in a timely manner? If FF was only available for Linux it would never have taken off. Attempting to challenge an already hugely successful product that's works excellently on Windows is every bit as pointless as writing yet another office suite. The real tragedy is the engineering effort that will go into this, when it could be spent on parts of the Linux system that really matter to the average user, e.g. sorting out the mess that is sound.
  • felipe 16y ago
    See firefox, inkscape as successful examples. Firefox is a great alternative to a sucky dominant player (IE). Inkscape is a great alternative to expensive dominant players (graphic software). The problem with this case is that Skype is excellent, free and dominant. There is no incentive for users to switch, other than being open source (which appeals to people like you and me, but the masses don't care)
    • wyclif 16y ago
      There is no incentive for users to switch ...unless you're on Linux.
      • jtheory 16y ago
        What's the incentive for Linux users? Philosophical consistency?
        • Kliment 16y ago
          Skype on Linux is lagging behind on supported functionality and has a number of program-freezing audio subsystem bugs.
        • ciupicri 16y ago
          No 64bit version last time I've checked.
        • vedang 16y ago
          skype sucks on linux.
    • Peaker 16y ago
      Skype has a horrible interface. It's Galaxy S Android client doesn't work and the problem hasn't been addressed in many months. I'll be one of the first to jump ship.
      • jstedfast 16y ago
• fjh 16y ago
  > The sad fact of the matter is most people do not give a hoot about software being open. While that is true, occasionally people care about the consequences of software being open. I think that skype is an example where this is true. I personally don't have any ideological problems with using non-free software, but I do mind the fact that skype on ubuntu is an abomination UI-wise (believe me, it is far far worse than the windows and osx versions), and I have never actually managed to make a call with it. I know that at least some of my (non-geek) friends share that pain. Unfortunately I agree that the network effect probably means that the chances of any open alternative are slim to none.
  • pclark 16y ago
    I would dispute that open source software was easier to use for the majority of products. Agreed about Skype for Linux, mind.
    • fjh 16y ago
      Oh, that was not what I meant to say. My point was just that, because skype and its protocol are closed, Linux users are stuck with their horrible implementation. If it was open, there would at least be the possibility of a compatible, decent alternative being developed. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
• tomjen3 16y ago
  Widespread yes, but I for one hate it especially the user interface. Not that it matters of course, the network effects are so strong it will be hard to beat.
• trotsky 16y ago
  The fact that I will be able to build it from source does make a difference to me, and likely to several people I call. It doesn't matter to me if everyone uses it as long as the person I want to talk to does.
• patrickaljord 16y ago
  Actually Skype is pretty horrible on linux, it uses tons of CPU, crashes a lot and lacks tons of features compared to windows. Also I've heard bad things about the OSX version.
  • StavrosK 16y ago
    Not to mention the iPhone/Android clients. It's horrible on Linux, sending a few messages will cause it to hang and consume 100% CPU until you shut it down, with the only indication that it hung being the CPU usage.
  • nyud 16y ago
    I've actually had a pretty decent experience with Skype on Linux, even with my slow Eee PC. Granted, I don't use video a ton, but it seems to hold up fine when I do. That said, it is certainly missing a lot of the features included in the Windows and Mac versions. In addition, the Android version lacks video, and is a bit clunky, but I have not had problems with its performance.
• jasonkester 16y ago
  Why is it sad? Your tone makes it sound as though most people should care about such things. The strange thing I notice about this submission is that it's not actually a software product. It's not even a prototype "weekend project, try it out" thing. It's just a announcement that somebody intends to build some software. I'm surprised to find it at the top of HN.
• nandemo 16y ago
  How can Skype be "insanely great" if its latest client is "horrendous"?
• Stormbringer 16y ago
  Just because something is popular (e.g. MySpace) doesn't mean something else can't come along and replace it (e.g. Facebook) Everyone I know who uses Skype complains (eventually) about the quality. Additionally, Skype is effectively a closed (in the sense of opaque) system controlled by corporate interests. Now, I'm not against someone making a fair return on a fair service, but I do worry about who has control over my information. Who is Skype accountable to?
• michaelbuckbee 16y ago
  The hope of something like this isn't to replicate Skype (the UI and behaviors) in an "open" form but to set the stage for new and different communications tools that wouldn't have been possible. Some random thoughts on scenarios where this might make sense over Skype 1. You want to make a game that includes voice chat. 2. You're building something that's more a one-way flow of audio (like a baby monitor). 3. Self hosted Twilio type services. 4. An in house/office intercom system.
• SecurityMatters 16y ago
  Enough people care about the software being open that this project will have a good market, if it produces a useful product. I tried Skype several years ago, but I never felt comfortable using it. With proprietary software like Skype, you just don't know what they are doing with your data. The GNU project does not have to be better than Skype, just usable. Ekiga and Twinkle work pretty well now, but they have problems that more competition should help. And, like other people here say, I suspect the GNU project is likely to produce a product that can be hooked into all sorts of other products. It is the UNIX way, after all.