4 ms·

Wasn't the whole point of O.G. Skype that it was entirely peer to peer, and did not require a central service? Then, once Microsoft bought it, the first thing t

Wasn't the whole point of O.G. Skype that it was entirely peer to peer, and did not require a central service? Then, once Microsoft bought it, the first thing they did was ditch that and make it require centralized servers? IMO peak Skype was right before it was bought. Agreed though, every time Microsoft touched it, they made it worse. But many (most?) software is like that now. I dread new releases, because everyone makes software worse now.

genewitch 2y ago
msmsgs.exe was p2p. Came with Windows 98, possibly 95. Video, audio, text. Maybe microsoft forgot they made that?
codedokode 2y ago
The selling point of original Skype was that it allowed making audio calls on worst connections, requiring just several kilobytes/sec, and going through NATs (other products required a direct fast connection and were usable only within a local network). As for P2P, I don't think users care about that. Not having P2P is actually better because P2P can disclose your IP address. For example, Tox is a fully decentralized P2P messenger and it is not widely popular.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  There was some drama with regarding to Tox a couple of years ago. I do not remember the specifics. Is there a security whitepaper for it?
x0x0 2y ago
Right, but that architecture falls apart in a mobile-first world.
johannes1234321 2y ago
The p2p part was relevant for the operators as Skype didn't need to run (and pay) their own servers to deal with the load, but some other user close by provided it for free, giving low latency all over the world. However with shift to mobile the patterns changed and less people ran it on desktops, thus less supernodes and the p2p approach had limitations (no group call) where solutions were needed.
randerson 2y ago
Skype pre-acquisition had constant sync issues. I'd sometimes send a message that would only show up days later, or someone would call me and it would only ring on a different device. P2P was obviously cheaper for them to run, but it became far more stable after they introduced servers.

genewitch 2y ago

msmsgs.exe was p2p. Came with Windows 98, possibly 95. Video, audio, text. Maybe microsoft forgot they made that?

codedokode 2y ago

The selling point of original Skype was that it allowed making audio calls on worst connections, requiring just several kilobytes/sec, and going through NATs (other products required a direct fast connection and were usable only within a local network). As for P2P, I don't think users care about that. Not having P2P is actually better because P2P can disclose your IP address. For example, Tox is a fully decentralized P2P messenger and it is not widely popular.

johnisgood 2y ago
There was some drama with regarding to Tox a couple of years ago. I do not remember the specifics. Is there a security whitepaper for it?

x0x0 2y ago

Right, but that architecture falls apart in a mobile-first world.

johannes1234321 2y ago

The p2p part was relevant for the operators as Skype didn't need to run (and pay) their own servers to deal with the load, but some other user close by provided it for free, giving low latency all over the world. However with shift to mobile the patterns changed and less people ran it on desktops, thus less supernodes and the p2p approach had limitations (no group call) where solutions were needed.

randerson 2y ago

Skype pre-acquisition had constant sync issues. I'd sometimes send a message that would only show up days later, or someone would call me and it would only ring on a different device. P2P was obviously cheaper for them to run, but it became far more stable after they introduced servers.