Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Skype Officially Available For Android

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.

Communications 286

After a lot of speculation, Arvisp writes "Skype has released an official Android version. It allows calling via 3G and WiFi." One step closer to the carriers being just... carriers.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

At last! (5, Interesting)

metageek (466836) | about 4 years ago | (#33793252)

At last! but how soon are carriers going to block its traffic?

Re:At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793274)

Well, considering it's WiFi only in the US, I'd say as soon as yesterday.

Re:At last! (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 years ago | (#33793420)

proper carriers? never. in usa 3g use is disabled, apparently. outside of usa 3g is a go. blame the carriers if you're in usa - and also skype, since skype could have released it in a totally connection-neutral form. but they didn't.

Re:At last! (0)

Ihateturtlenecks (1913380) | about 4 years ago | (#33793454)

It was the right decision. Video conferencing is broadband intensive and that is what most people will use Skype for if their phones can do it. For all the flak Apple is taking about the iPhone 4 not allowing videocalls without wifi, they are right. Even in NYC, ATT's network takes a pounding and occasionalyl goes dark in some areas because they weren't ready for the way people would use the iPhone and other smartphones.

Re:At last! (2, Insightful)

AltairDusk (1757788) | about 4 years ago | (#33793624)

Maybe some serious infrastructure pounding from things like video calling will inspire customers to get the infrastructure they've been lagging behind on in place faster.

Re:At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793634)

Even in NYC

What is this, the new 'We can put a man on the moon, but...'?

Re:At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793752)

@ihateturtlenecks #att qos in #nyc is inferior to anyplace else. #badexample

Re:At last! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793776)

proper fags? you.

you have so many dicks in your ass and mouth you speak like an idiot.

Re:At last! (3, Informative)

generalhavok (1432165) | about 4 years ago | (#33793512)

If I recall, no US carrier has ever allowed VOIP traffic on 3g. On my AT&T iPhone, Skype has to use WiFi. Appears to be the same case on my Verizon Droid too. I recently went on a trip to Russia. I bought a cheap SIM card with a data plan for my (jailbroken) iPhone, and just out of curiosity, I launched Skype, it it let me place a call right over 3g! That saved me a lot of money for calling my family back home. Not to mention that cell phone plans and data is cheaper there than in the US too. Amazing what some real competition in a market can do.

Re:At last! (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | about 4 years ago | (#33793636)

If you're on iPhone and you're jailbroken get 3g Unrestrictor (I think that's what they're calling it now) off of Cydia. Once you've used it to fool Skype into thinking it's on WiFi you can make all the voip calls you want. It's the one thing I miss after making the switch to Android, I haven't found something comparable to it yet.

One step closer? (2, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 4 years ago | (#33793262)

One step closer to the carriers being just... carriers.

Let me introduce you to the wonderful world of pay-as-you-go data plans with an android phone.

Re:One step closer? (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | about 4 years ago | (#33793662)

If enough customers defect to other carriers rather than renew their contract to AT&T and Verizon's new tiered data garbage they will have to drop the idea. I don't have much hope in this happening but when my renewal comes up I will do my part.

US only? (1)

bastiaannaber (701867) | about 4 years ago | (#33793268)

"Sorry, Skype is niet beschikbaar voor uw mobiel..."

Re:US only? (3, Interesting)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33793390)

I see it in the marketplace in the UK - "Free *Skype-to-Skype calls over 3G or WiFi." Haven't tried downloading it as I'm not currently in a WiFi spot and my data connection is rubbish at work, but it looks like the genuine article.

Re:US only? (1)

Jeoh (1393645) | about 4 years ago | (#33793416)

Do you have a Samsung Galaxy S? If so, then it's not available for you. It works fine on my HTC Desire (in the same glorious country).

Re:US only? (1)

BlackCreek (1004083) | about 4 years ago | (#33793832)

Perhaps you have the wildfire whose screen definition is too low for the Skype app? Or you don't have Android 2.1?

I have a G1 running Cyanogen 6.? (i.e. Android 2.2) in France and could just install it.

Cool (4, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33793280)

It would be interesting to see how this affects battery life. I love my Eris, but the battery life on the stock battery is pretty suck. Would something like Skype drain a battery faster than calling someone using the 'phone' portion of the device?

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793372)

Would something like Skype drain a battery faster than calling someone using the 'phone' portion of the device?

I suspect so, since specialized processors deal with normal voice communication, while Skype does everything in software that runs on a less specialized CPU.

Re:Cool (2, Informative)

bemymonkey (1244086) | about 4 years ago | (#33793464)

I haven't measured power consumption during actual calls, but during standby the Skype app seems very well behaved. According to Currentwidget, my phone draws about 5mA during standby with Skype running... same as without Skype. :)

Re:Cool (2, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33793520)

Depending on your distance from the tower and the access point, it could be quite a lot less. I've certainly had situations where I've had a very poor cell signal and strong wi-fi, and thus the wi-fi has been more reliable and more power-thrifty.

Re:Cool (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 4 years ago | (#33793798)

If Skype on the iPhone is any indication, yes, it will drain battery life a great deal faster than using the stock phone. And, if you're using it over wifi (which I believe is the only way it's currently available on Android), that will also probably result in your device heating up considerably more than using the phone as well. Again, if my experience using it on my iPhone is any indication (and I see no real reason for the Android version to be significantly different...).

One step...closer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793290)

"One step closer to the carriers being just... carriers."

Indeed! One step closer, three step back.

Thanks a lot, Google/Android.

More detail... (4, Informative)

GraemeDonaldson (826049) | about 4 years ago | (#33793300)

  • If you're in the US, only WiFi for you (presumably doesn't apply if you have a Verizon device with their bundled version)
  • If you're in China or Japan, no Skype for you!
  • Android 2.1+ required
  • Minimum screen res of 320x480 required

Also, it's 9MB, there's a link to the .apk for those of us with metered data plans: com.skype.raider.apk [multiupload.com] .

Re:More detail... (2, Interesting)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | about 4 years ago | (#33793326)

I am using on Android 2.0 , It says nothing on 2.1 being required.

Re:More detail... (1)

BlackCreek (1004083) | about 4 years ago | (#33793846)

The Skype official blog says 2.1 is required...

Re:More detail... (2, Informative)

kzharv (175360) | about 4 years ago | (#33793526)

Why no skype in Japan?
I see no such restriction after installing on 2 phones here in Tokyo....

Re:More detail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793824)

Skype works fine in China, also on 3G and Android.

If you go to skype.com the re-direct you to a Chinese version with a modified version. Nothing however prevents you from downloading or using the "safe" international version.

Just tried it and there's a big gotcha (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793306)

No 3G calling from the US---curse you Verizon!

Chozo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793312)

I question whether or not the android skype app will support front facing cameras such as the htc Evo 4G.

gay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793318)

homosexual gay babies FTW!

access rights? (3, Interesting)

mercurized (907818) | about 4 years ago | (#33793320)

I am still confused as of why that application wants access to all my accounts on the phone, and even wants to be able to use those other accounts as authentification method to some other unspecified purposes..

Re:access rights? (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about 4 years ago | (#33793480)

I don't think it asks permission for what you think it does. It's two separate things its asks permission to do:

1. Read and write contacts

2. Gain some sort of recognition in Android's auth system. It may be that it registers itself as an authentication method (kind of like your google or facebook login can be used to identify you elsewhere), or that it makes use of such authentication services, I didn't look too closely. Either way, it's nothing to worry about.

Skype? have had it for over two weeks. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793332)

I've had Skype on my android phone (HTC Incredible) for over 2 weeks. It came installed on it. So how is this news?
Checking the Market, I don't even see an upgrade for it.
So, once again, how is this news?

Trillian is the app that I keep looking for.

Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. (1)

wannabe-retiree (845754) | about 4 years ago | (#33793362)

Verizon had an exclusive deal where they were the only carrier whose android phones could have skype.

Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793378)

Your skype is the Verizon blessed and hobbled version. It uses Verizon voice minutes for the first leg into the cloud. Therefore it's only useful in saving on international long distance charges. This new Skype can use WiFi.

Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793396)

I've had Skype on my android phone (HTC Incredible) for over 2 weeks. It came installed on it. So how is this news?
Checking the Market, I don't even see an upgrade for it.
So, once again, how is this news?

Trillian is the app that I keep looking for.

There are two different versions in the verizon android makret: Skype Mobile (VZW edition) and Skype. You'll need to uninstall the VZW version and then download the official Skype one.

Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793572)

You don't need to uninstall anything. The two versions behave nicely together.

Re:Skype? have had it for over two weeks. (2, Informative)

Spad (470073) | about 4 years ago | (#33793786)

So we like open source, but not open protocols? (5, Interesting)

anti-NAT (709310) | about 4 years ago | (#33793334)

Why do the slashdot crowd rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (3, Insightful)

_merlin (160982) | about 4 years ago | (#33793394)

Because at the core, they're cheapskates. MS Office costs money while OpenOffice doesn't, so it's convenient to find other supporting reasons to hate MS Office. OTOH, they see Skype and think "free calls!" so all is forgiven.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (2, Insightful)

Ihateturtlenecks (1913380) | about 4 years ago | (#33793398)

Because MS is a big, evil, multibillion dollar corporation, but Skype is a free and wonderful...and what? It's actually the property of a multibillion dollar corporation? And they just poached an executive from another multibillion dollar corporation in order to find more ways to draw revenue from their service? Damn. Actually, I think it has more to do with the perceived quality of MS's products and services. True or not, they have a reputation.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (5, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | about 4 years ago | (#33793402)

Why do the slashdot crowd rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?

It's not that we love closed protocols. We don't. We simply hate the phone company more.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 4 years ago | (#33793470)

Why do the slashdot crowd rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?

My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings. Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.
Therefore I implore you to blindly believe that MS be scum bags. As well as Darl McBride. And that most other creations of god are but meek.

Oh, and Skype has a very large installed base. So we want it. And then we will whine as soon as Skype takes advantage.

bringing it oldschool. (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 4 years ago | (#33793710)

verily.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (3, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | about 4 years ago | (#33793502)

In this case, the closed and proprietary VoIP protocol enables people to work around price discrimination on closed and proprietary wires.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#33793646)

And the open VoIP protocols don't?

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (1)

Albanach (527650) | about 4 years ago | (#33793668)

In this case, the closed and proprietary VoIP protocol enables people to work around price discrimination on closed and proprietary wires.

But surely there are decent SIP clients for Android? My 4 year old Nokia E Series can do native SIP voip calls over 3G or WIFI, integrating fully with the built in phonebook. I can select a number from the phone book and call it over the cellphone network or through my asterisk box at home. My cell phone can act as a local extension of the home phone system.

It doesn't do SIP based video calls, but as a phone it works a charm, and the functionality is standard.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (4, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | about 4 years ago | (#33793556)

Skype is a lot like Flash when it comes to slashbots.

Before Apple said "no Flash on our devices" Flash was absolutely worthless and evil.

As soon as Apple said no Flash on their devices Flash was a saint in the process of being martyred by evil tech-heathens.

So in any other context (or previous threads) Skype is the epitome of the corruptness and wastefulness (OMG it uses bandwidth even when you're not talking!!!) of closed source. Now that it is available to the droidbois it is the symbol of freedom, sticking to the (telecom) man.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (2, Insightful)

niftydude (1745144) | about 4 years ago | (#33793654)

Well I don't know about the rest of the slashdot crowd - but I always choose sip and open voip codecs over skype where possible - and every linux nerd I know with any street cred at all runs an asterisk pbx server in their home - even if they don't actually have anyone to call.

People here like to hang shit on nokia and symbian - but the nokia e-series of mobile phones have had working voip over 3g for a very long time.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (1)

lorax (2988) | about 4 years ago | (#33793688)

I'd much rather use SIP, but I have had a lot of trouble with SIP to SIP calls when using different VOIP programs. I have had almost no luck with video over SIP, skype video works. This app doesn't have video so I probably won't use it much.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (3, Insightful)

shish (588640) | about 4 years ago | (#33793690)

Why do the slashdot crowd

If you're going to generalise all of slashdot as a single entity with a single opinion, why not ask yourself? You are part of it :P

rally against closed and proprietary data formats like MS Word documents, but not closed and proprietary VoIP protocols?

Personally I'm not so much anti-closed as anti-suck. Closedness sucks politically, so I generally prefer open; but in this case all the other VoIP products suck technically and to a much larger degree

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793712)

I think the biggest problem with MS Word is that they have a format that attempts to do some vendor lock in, it works because we need to read the files at a later date, skype is a thing that only needs to work now, if they did something nobody liked then it isn't too difficult to switch, there is nothing other than your friends that have to have the same thing.

I see DRM the same way, while I don't exactly like it, what netflix does isn't exactly a problem because I have no expectation that I will keep the DRM'd data where buying things on iTunes implies it is mine, so I have a problem if they control that.

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793718)

Open Office is to Office as Skype is to...?

Re:So we like open source, but not open protocols? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 4 years ago | (#33793732)

Because MS is an evil she-demon who is trying to suck our souls into eternal darkness, of course.

Am I missing something? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 years ago | (#33793370)

Don't you pay more for data traffic than you do for voice traffic? Skype can give you free VOIP but then you have to pay more to the carrier for the data traffic. About the only thing I can see this being good for is international calls, which usually aren't included in your free minutes you get in your plan.

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Insightful)

Jimmy King (828214) | about 4 years ago | (#33793430)

That depends. It says it supports wifi and there are wifi hotspots on practically every corner where I live and many of them are free and of course the wifi in my house is free for me to use. The carriers all (I believe all of them, anyway) require an "unlmited" (with varying defintions of unlimited) data plan with Android phones, so depending on how much data skype actually uses and how much you use for other stuff, it may still be a viable option if you're over on your voice minutes or whatever.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

PARENA (413947) | about 4 years ago | (#33793438)

Unless you have a set price for your 3G connection, like many countries/carriers have. I know here in Finland they do that. And in the Netherlands as well. Guess that'll be changing in the coming years, but for now you pay one amount and not per meg.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33793568)

I was lucky enough to get onto an unlimited data package right before O2 dropped them, hopefully they'll grandfather that in for as long as I'm with them, although I also have unlimited nationwide calls so it's not a big bonus to have Skype (would be if I called abroad a lot, though), but yes, it looks like capped packages or pay per meg will be the norm going forward.

Re:Am I missing something? (4, Interesting)

PPalmgren (1009823) | about 4 years ago | (#33793450)

Voice traffic is very small when in a data format, and no, data is much cheaper. Assuming a megabyte a minute (which is probably on the high end), 5 gigs at $30/mo is 2000 minutes. My 1400 minute family plan is $80/mo.

I think this is why carriers are instituting data tiers.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | about 4 years ago | (#33793466)

Mega Fail, missed the edit button. 5 gigs at $30/mo is 5000 minutes.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 years ago | (#33793726)

Guess it's pretty carrier dependent.

My "Family plan" is $60 ($50 basic + $10 extra phone) for 550 minutes; my data plan is 200MB for $15 (or 2GB for $25). Thing is, I have to pay $40-50 just to connect to the network - I've never seen a data only plan *for a phone* with more than 100-200MB/month, and they're usually about $60. It seems that its not the cost of data, but the cost of being always on the network (fixed costs).

Still, it's nice to have options. I recently was on a golf outing at a remote hotel - they had WiFi, but no cell coverage. Thanks to Skype, I didn't have to pay the phone rates on the landlines there.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 4 years ago | (#33793482)

Depends where you're calling, someone in the same country, on the same network as you, sure. But someone on a different network in a country over the other side of the closest ocean to you?

Re:Am I missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793562)

Depends on your plan:
I have one of the old O2 plans here in the UK, and I get unlimited data (fair usage policy applies on 3g networks, thousands of 'the cloud' wifi hot spots are free with no restrictions).
Even with one of the new data plans, which limit you to 500megs or more, you can get a decent amount of minutes when your calling overseas when on a skype monthly plan.
I use the pay as you go skype plan, and top up £10, but since i pay ~1p per minute for landlines to poland/uk/europe, it comes out around 1000 minutes - which I rarely use within a couple of months (just to call friends/family during the weekend).
Admitably - none of this is free - I still pay my carrier £15 a month for the plan, and pay skype whatever change I have around.
All in all - its a lot cheaper to use skype than to use my carriers regular network.
I could get 50 free minutes with O2 for a £10/month bolt-on, but I think you can see where this is headed.......

I'm certain there are other people in a similar situation.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

generalhavok (1432165) | about 4 years ago | (#33793564)

Also, I'd like to point out that before this update, Skype for Android (at least with my Verizon Droid) would route my out-going Skype calls to a regular phone number, where it was presumably dialing into a computer than would then route my call over IP to the destination. Since I had unlimited calling on my phone, I found this to actually be better quality than calls directly over WiFi or my internet connection. Less latency, and better quality, in my opinion.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

niftydude (1745144) | about 4 years ago | (#33793610)

Well I don't know about the US, but here in Oz I pay $1 a month for 150mb of data over 3g - so assuming an AMR codec with a bitrate at 20kbps (2.5kb/s) (which is what fring uses, I don't know about skype) - that gives me around 1000 minutes of talk per dollar!
I don't know if any voice only plans can match that.

I hear some of the other low bandwidth AMR codecs are capable of 6.5kbps - which would double that result.

Of course - if you want to call someone who doesn't have sip - you need to pay a voip provider for the dial-out service. But as far as I've experienced - it always turns out cheaper.

No video (1)

lorax (2988) | about 4 years ago | (#33793382)

It doesn't look like it can do video, that's too bad. You can also have only one account active (so you can't have both a work and a personal account). It takes over 10MB installed and can't be installed on the SD card. Other than that, it looks good.

3G calls... (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | about 4 years ago | (#33793404)

...are only available to installations outside the US, I think.

But how do you quit? (3, Interesting)

Cormacus (976625) | about 4 years ago | (#33793412)

The idea of voip calling over WIFI is kindof nice, but this app rubs me the wrong way immediately with its lack of a "quit" button. Once you start it up, it sits there in the background until you reboot your phone (or go kill the app from the settings menu, I know). I wouldn't go as far as to call this "sinister" but it isn't exactly customer friendly, either.

Re:But how do you quit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793492)

Have you never used android before? Almost every app is like that.

Re:But how do you quit? (1)

Movi (1005625) | about 4 years ago | (#33793574)

This is how all of android apps work, by design.

Re:But how do you quit? (1)

Cormacus (976625) | about 4 years ago | (#33793644)

Well, since I happen to have a convenient Android phone right here, I will rise to your unhelpful response.

ConnectBot
- explicit button in the menu to kill the current connection
- the "back" button quits the app

AndroidVNC
- the "back" button quits the app

Outlook mail client
- the "back" button quits the app

MapDroyd
- the "back" button quits the app

Google Maps
- the "back" button quits the app

Google "Talk"
- a button in the menu allows you to sign out, so . . .
- the "back" button then quits the app

I'm sorry, what was your point? In the Skype application the back button does not quit the app, and there isn't an easily accessible way to sign out. After digging around in the options I finally found the "Sign Out" button, but its not nearly as easy to access as in other apps. Hence my post.

Re:But how do you quit? (1)

robmv (855035) | about 4 years ago | (#33793758)

So the bug is the absence of an easily accessible signout button, no that the app does not exit, the grand parent is right Android was designed so apps do not need to be closed by the user, because apps without background threads are not wasting resources, and apps must expect that the system will kill them if needed. Apps on Android that really kill the process are not following the Android way of work, but for some kind of apps that is right (games with exit button for example)

Google Talk process does not ends when you press back, it still is running, even if you press the signout button.

Re:But how do you quit? (1)

Movi (1005625) | about 4 years ago | (#33793762)

With the exception of connectBot, all of those you listed do not in literal sense quit the app, or close it. You can just as well press the home button, with the exact same effect - the application in question will be kept in memory, and the process will not be destroyed, unless Android deems it necessary.

  What IS true however, is that you cannot sign-off, thus Skype marks itself active, and Android will not attempt to close it (and free it's resources) like it should. But I've corrected myself about that.

Re:But how do you quit? (2, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33793590)

Well, two things - firstly the point of Skype is generally that you're available and logged in. If everyone used it as you're suggesting, you'd never be able to call someone without pre-arranging it. Whether that makes sense in the context of Skype on a mobile, we'll have to wait and see, it's early days. Secondly, most Android apps behave this way, in fact I think I've yet to encounter an in-app "quit" option, unless it's buried in the settings menu, so if this is not customer friendly, it's an accusation against a large number of Android apps rather than foul play on behalf of Skype.

Re:But how do you quit? (1)

Cormacus (976625) | about 4 years ago | (#33793700)

Thanks for the well-articulated response. I was probably too quick to post complaining about a lack of a "quit" button. However most Android apps, though lacking a "quit" button, quit when you use the back button to get back to the home page. In the case of an app that is intended to stay logged in you're right that that doesn't make sense, and I did eventually find the "sign out" setting that then causes the "back" button to quit the app.

Re:But how do you quit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793852)

Hitting back doesn't quit the app, it takes you back to the previous activity, which is usually the home screen. Pull up a task manager and you'll see most apps are still loaded waiting for you to return to them, with state intact. Wait a while and Android will eventually nuke them by itself but its unpredictable.

There really is no concept of quitting an app in Android and devs are heavily discouraged from hacking their own solutions. It can be bloody annoying at times.

Re:But how do you quit? (1)

Venrix_Ckalzar (977644) | about 4 years ago | (#33793676)

Ive installed it, found the signout button under the 'my info' tab - was not even looking for it either. Quality of my first test call (to another skype user) was sucky on my end(chopped up occasionally), but that could have been my DSL connection being spastic (in Australia FWIW). Otherwise it seems ok to me... for now

And it's OK, except for a few bugs... (1, Interesting)

bemymonkey (1244086) | about 4 years ago | (#33793436)

... the most horrendous of which is the same one more or less all other Android instant messaging apps have:

After about 10-20 minutes of the phone idling, the app is just closed in the background. Notification icon stays put, so you don't notice it, but when you try to actually open Skype again, it starts up right at the login screen and procedes to log in again. Nearly all the other instant messaging apps I've tried also exhibit this behaviour: Meebo, Nimbuzz, eBuddy, IM+ 3.x...

Other than that it's not bad. Decent power management (between 0 and 1mA of power drain in standby, compared to 35-40mA for most other IM apps), good call quality on WiFi (haven't tried 3G yet) and a decent UI.

Still feels pretty buggy, of course, but hey... it's Skype and the calls work!

Re:And it's OK, except for a few bugs... (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33793706)

Are you sure this isn't actually a problem with your specific version of Android? Not that I've even tried any instant messaging apps on my phone yet, but some versions of Android are better than others depending on how much the carrier has screwed around with them.

Connect to Google Voice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793468)

Yes but how do I add it to Google Voice such that I can have Google Voice dial my cell phone via Skype?

Whoah... Its how big?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793496)

13.8Mb installed, and no move to SD option... thanks, but I will wait until SD install is supported

Google Voice (3, Informative)

EasyRhino (109776) | about 4 years ago | (#33793500)

Re: Allows calling via 3G and WiFi.

This was already available via the Google Voice app. It even has integration with the phone app to be the default method to make calls.

Re:Google Voice (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793530)

Thank you for pointing this out. In fact, I use GV with my old GrandCentral account for both in/out-bound voice on a "data only" N900 on T-Mobile (unlimited data only plan is $25/mo). Skype, schmype.

Re:Google Voice (1)

faedle (114018) | about 4 years ago | (#33793560)

At least on any Android device I've ever used the Google Voice app does not deliver calls to your handset over VoIP, it delivers it by making a phone call from your handset to a special phone number (or by delivering a call to your handset FROM a special number).

Re:Google Voice (1)

zufar (603583) | about 4 years ago | (#33793594)

Google voice is not available in Russia, Skype work anywhere where there is internet.

Skype still CLOSED SOURCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793508)

Skype uses a proprietary protocol which is not compatible with any published VoIP standards. Skype is closed source, developed by the Estonians who also developed Kazaa. Skype actively resists security analysis attempts. The PC version of Skype reads BIOS information. Skype uses vulnerable cryptographic algorithms. Skype has distributed third party GPL code without abiding by the license, was sued and lost.

Crashes immediatly after signin (1)

mnt (1796310) | about 4 years ago | (#33793540)

No matter which button i click, the application always closes unexpectedly. Uninstalled, needs obviously more polishing.

Basque? (1)

srussia (884021) | about 4 years ago | (#33793576)

FTFA: The app supports a number of languages, including Brazilian Portuguese, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Swedish, Polish, Russian, Simplified Chinese & Traditional Chinese.

I don't always call my Basque friends from abroad., but when I do I prefer Skype.

"Mantendu egarri, nire lagun."

Re:Basque? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793844)

Yep, and there are hundreds of other currently unsupported languages. Your point? This lot seems to cover a few billion people; it is a good start.

skype is good. asterisk is better (1)

markusre (1521371) | about 4 years ago | (#33793602)

... nice.... but not great

i'd rather have an asterisk version that runs on my mobile device.
i would love to be able to program dialplans on my mobile...

1. some cron-job that checks if my sim is inserted. and if not it writes a call file that makes the phone call expensive 0190-... numbers (these are the 2-5€/min lines in germany)
i know it doesn't bring me my phone back but at least i can have a little revenge and i hope by the time the thief realizes this he has a phone bill of 2000€ or more (and gained a 200€ mobile)

2. some time & phone number check (i hate it when my boss calls me in the early morning, he and a lot of other inbound numbers should be redirected to some voice recongnation system). i know a lot of phones have some grouping of numbers and the ability to set only some numbers to mute, but it's just not adaptable enough.

Re:skype is good. asterisk is better (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33793664)

So load a SIP client on your Android phone and point it to your Asterisk server. SIPDroid works great.

For those that are wondering.... (1)

NiteShaed (315799) | about 4 years ago | (#33793604)

it doesn't work on Sprint's 4G network either, it really is just WiFi only.

This doesn't really bother me, since I generally only use Skype as a fallback if there's no cell service available to me at all, so really it's doing just what I want. For long-distance calling when I have a signal, I generally stick with Google Voice which works great over regular cell networks, but has no VOIP option yet on Android. Once Google adds wifi calling, I'll be pretty close to saying bye-bye to Skype for paid services.

Skype on 3G? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 4 years ago | (#33793652)

I dunno about the bulk of humanity, but it seems to me that latency on 3G would be too high to support skype without significant buffering delays...

This thing sucks on Verizon (1)

Orleron (835910) | about 4 years ago | (#33793760)

With Verizon you can't make calls with WiFi on it. It routes all the calls through your Verizon carrier, so what's the point of Skype if you can't use it via wifi? Garbage.

Skype and resources (1)

irp (260932) | about 4 years ago | (#33793764)

The download of Skype takes ~8.5MB, when installed it eats ~14MB of my meager phone storage.

I've seen comments that it requires a lot of CPU, introducing noise in the transmission for low-end android phones (I didn't try to make a call myself).

For comparison, Nimbuzz - which also use the Skype network - takes ~4.5MB to download and uses ~9.6MB of storage after install.

Also I wasn't able to find a "close" function in Skype! I could of course kill the app, but that should *not* be necessary. Another option is to log out, which requires entering the password at next login, also not convenient.

All in all I decided to uninstall skype, and keep using Nimbuzz for the rare times I need VoIP on my mobile.

What a fudgy turd (1)

wampus (1932) | about 4 years ago | (#33793770)

It doesn't work in landscape mode for several panels, so you get to rotate your phone manually. The stupid notification that won't go away is lovely, and there is no way to merge contacts. Also, 9MB? Seriously? Maybe later, but I doubt it.

google voice already works in 3G and free US calls (1)

harry_one (869539) | about 4 years ago | (#33793802)

Why are they blocking 3G when google voice allows it?

Old News and Verizon Only (1)

JustABlitheringIdiot (1773798) | about 4 years ago | (#33793812)

This has been around for a while (at least 3 weeks) and so far the ONLY Android phones it supports are on Verizon. If you access their page with anything else they tell you to get a Verizon phone.

It's just marketing, baby! (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | about 4 years ago | (#33793822)

Just until CISCO will buy Skype. Then everything will revert back to normal operation.

Skype not the solution (1)

MogNuts (97512) | about 4 years ago | (#33793838)

VoIP or Skype on a cell isn't necessarily the best solution. My findings with using the two extensively:

- Unusable voice quality while driving. To many breakups, jitter, total silence for like 30 sec
- Same for using it over 3G, even in an area with great coverage
- Performs great on wifi via cell but only if within very close range to one's router
- Voice quality using it on a PC with a headset/microphone is vastly superior than using Skype via cell; via cell isn't clear enough, yet doesn't filter out background noise so it's tougher to understand

In theory using voip for everything seems grand. But...

If you don't talk alot, using Skype to supplement your minutes is fine. But if you talk alot or use the cell for business, whatever the telco does for voice codec/network optimization they do, one is better off getting unlimited minutes or getting more minutes. The quality when mobile and not tethered to wifi is superior.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?