×

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!

Facebook Wants To Buy Skype

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the poke-that-ebay dept.

Cloud 192

An anonymous reader writes "Remember when we learned that Facebook had resumed talks with Skype? Well, it turns out that Facebook is considering buying Skype outright. 'Skype is reportedly talking to Facebook about some sort of deal. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been involved in internal discussions about buying Skype, while Facebook also reached out to the Luxembourg-based company about forming a joint venture.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

192 comments

Noooooooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034022)

Fuck no

No

Bad idea

Re:Noooooooo (2)

Teknikal69 (1769274) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034520)

I really hope not as well I would have to ditch skype completely I refuse to use facebook if this proves true I'm deleting my skype details immediately.

Guess it's time to start looking for alternatives apart from google which isn't rolled out in the UK yet I have no Idea.

Re:Noooooooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034566)

Skype is huge, right? They have a bunch of personal information about users who pay for their service and whatnot. Hmmm. I wonder what would happen to our privacy?

New name? (5, Funny)

dorix (414150) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034034)

If they buy Skype, they should change their name to Phonebook.

What happens when black Democrats are in charge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034178)

for decades:

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/report-nearly-half-of-detroiters-cant-read/ [cbslocal.com]

Atlas did indeed shrug. Anyone who wants to see what liberals are all about should head to Detroit.

ideologue (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034310)

Atlas did indeed shrug. Anyone who wants to see what liberals are all about should head to Detroit.

You, my friend, are an ideologue. This can be disproven by trying to find some disconfirming evidence for your previous statement. If you think none exists, then my point is proven.

Re:New name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034352)

And if somebody tries to trademark that name I will cry.

Re:New name? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034428)

I'd get a good chuckle out of someone trying to trademark "Phonebook", it would point out how ridiculous trademarks are getting. If someone succeeded however, I'd probably cry too.

Re:New name? (1)

Stellian (673475) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034852)

I'd get a good chuckle out of someone trying to trademark "Phonebook", it would point out how ridiculous trademarks are getting. If someone succeeded however, I'd probably cry too.

That would be almost like someone getting a trademark on the word 'face' [slashdot.org] in the field of 'Telecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users'.

Apocolypse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034040)

Deal is set to finalize December 21st, 2012.

Re:Apocolypse (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034278)

Thanks, that's the day I close my Skype account I guess.

Facebook: All your phones are belong to we! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034828)

Yep, time to finally look for other options and not lazily continue to use Skype.

Can't wait for Skypeville! (1)

PmanAce (1679902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034042)

I don't think this is a good idea, getting 5 skype conversation requests at a time while being on Facebook or getting Skypeville requests.

So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternative? (3, Insightful)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034044)

Seriously, Skype has been a grudgingly-necessary eyesore for years, and yet we don't seem to have a widely-accepted and/or functionally-equivalent OSS project in the wild. How can this be?

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034092)

Skype's success, apart from having a good client, is its mobile clients such as android and apples app. I think a pay-model would be needed for such widespread platform support as I don't think open source would be able to achieve this.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034104)

Skype was huge way before their android and apple apps. Just sayin...

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (2)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034186)

Skype was huge way before their android and apple apps. Just sayin...

Agreed: Skype became "the" thing way before it found a life on SmartPhones.

I have to agree with the earlier poster... I'm sure there are more open solutions out there, but I've yet to hear of anything large enough to even be considered a blip on Skype's radar.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034168)

What's so hard to achieve? One iOS app, one Android app, sorted for the majority of smartphone users. I think the real barrier to a true OSS competitor would be setting up servers and doing deals to allow calls to normal phone networks.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034290)

I dont care about the phone networks, I'd just like a more trustworthy, secure voice/video chat.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (3, Informative)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034502)

List of Open Source VOIP Software [voip-info.org]. Feel free to verify or modify the source to your liking. I think Ekiga [ekiga.org] sounds like a nice starting point, though I don't know how secure it is. It even supports calls to normal phones, so it seems I was wrong about that being a massive barrier.

Personally I don't care about trustworthiness or security in voice/video chat, since I've only ever used it for chatting to friends. For business use then being assured of confidentiality is more important of course.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034288)

Would it hell. Most of Skype works across P2P and Direct Connection..
Serverless P2P can even be done if they don't want a central authority controlling it. (or having to pay for one)
But a server is most likely the best option.

Skype itself is slowly but surely getting more terrible as it ages. Oh hey guys, look at all these features you don't want! ENJOY THEM! ENJOY THEM NOW!
You want crashy video pane on top of every chat window? WELL WE GOT THAT COVERED, ENJOY YOUR FULL OS CRASH ... AT RANDOM! SURPRISE!
I checked their Issue tracker recently, so many severe bugs in there...
Honestly, if anything, they NEED to be bought, they are severely behind in fixing huge issues like this.

Mumble with a better interface and a few more basic features would instantly be better than Skype.
Or, Google, Google could release a not-crap client for theirs and it will have a competitor.
Seriously, what is it with Google shooting their own feet with every kind of gun imaginable? Hey use our awesome chat system, the client sucks 10 kinds of balls and is ancient. Hey, use our awesome e-mail system. Using an old computer? Ooo boy you're in for some summer heats. Hey, use our social network. Why? Because. (I'm almost paraphrasing the last one there, Orkut isn't bad, but nobody knows the damn thing exists, ADVERTISE GOOGLE, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS STUFF, IT IS YOUR BUSINESS)

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034340)

Skype's success was almost certainly down to it's client. It was user friendly, clean, modern. It combined instant messaging with phone with free person to person voice chat. If you want to have an idea how revelatory this was, compare to abominations like Net2Phone.

I was certainly using it WAY before Android or the iPhone turned up. It had a Windows CE client which I used on several occasions to make cheap calls via an iPaq.

That said, it's gone a down the route of other IM clients stuffing in ads and other annoying behaviour which I could well do without. If facebook pull any shit like trying to make me use a Facebook login to use it, then bye bye Skype.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034106)

Why haven't you written something?

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034538)

Why haven't you?

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034596)

Why haven't I?

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (4, Informative)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034188)

Making a data call really isn't Harry Potter magic shit. It's a lot easier when POTS isn't involved, although involving POTS is still entirely possible. There are a few OSS PBX systems, notably Asterisk and OpenPBX, that you can slap on a server on the Internet and use to handle incoming data calls and a ton of other things as well. There are a number of Linux soft phones that will work either with one of these PBX systems or standalone for computer-to-computer calling across the Internet. The only real difference is the commercial software puts a shiny face on it and builds out the infrastructure required to make it convenient to use.

If you slap an Asterisk box on a static IP on the open internet, and then link your POTS phone number to your asterisk box through a directory service like E164.org, the 4 other guys who do that with asterisk can dial your phone number and their asterisk servers will realize that you're doing that too and call you over a data connection instead of through the traditional phone system. I'm pretty sure Asterisk can also initiate video conferencing sessions.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (3, Insightful)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034256)

It's not just about the POTS service, though. I rarely, if ever, see folks using it for voice-only calls. People use it for (in my experience):

1) Text-only chat (which is bat-guano-insane, IMHO)
2) Video chats

#2 sees the most use in my family and company circles. If we want voice-only, we call the other person's cell phone.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034412)

And then there's the iPhone (etc) skype clients, blah blah.

What Skype brings to the market is infrastructure and penetration. A cobble-it-together-yourself-out-of-FLOSS-components solution offers neither.

Somebody needs to (somehow) make this easy AND free.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034420)

1) Text-only chat (which is bat-guano-insane, IMHO)

Why would I use three different client types for different communications when one covers them all? That sounds a lot like having one car to go shopping, one to go to work, and one for the weekend. Personally, I don't have the inclination to maintain three cars, and one which does all three jobs is ideal.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034634)

...Because the Mac client is a hideously-designed UI and slow as all get-out, plus I can use Meebo to integrate all my other chat channels?

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034552)

I have an online DnD group that I play with on weekends. Between then, we keep in touch using the text chat built into Skype. We don't use video, either (although that might change due to some friends from a different DnD session moving away).

Having it all in one nice, compact package is really nice. Keeps problems to a minimum, too. Lord knows trying to coordinate seven people between three different programs is a nightmare and half.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034862)

Who would want video chat with DnD folks?

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (3, Interesting)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034192)

XMPP video with Pidgin.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034264)

Or Gajim.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034272)

Do either of these support

1) multiple concurrent video chat streams
2) Windows, Mac & Linux with a similar UI

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034380)

Windows, Mac & Linux with a similar UI

The first sign of a lousy port. Try instead: Windows, Mac & Linux versions, with UIs that fit each system's UI guidelines.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034576)

Windows, Mac & Linux with a similar UI

The first sign of a lousy port. Try instead: Windows, Mac & Linux versions, with UIs that fit each system's UI guidelines.

I hope you're not serious. If you are, wxWidgets [wxwidgets.org] does exactly what you say is the sign of a lousy port and fits each system's UI guidelines.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034478)

1) multiple concurrent video chat streams

I am not sure what you mean.

If you mean n-way video chat, where n>2, Skype (on Linux at least, I have never tried on Windows) does not support this, so it is not a step backwards.

If you mean multiple independent chat streams, you could just run multiple copies of the program.

Or does Skype allow multiple video sources in one call?

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034584)

I mean allowing multiple video streams on one call, yes. Perhaps the Linux client doesn't yet allow for it. The Pro/subscriber edition on Mac and Windows does, at least in theory.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034674)

That doesn't work on relevant operating systems yet, unfortunately. But it's a (small) start.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034218)

How can this be?

It's simple: Skype is to Ekiga as Windows was to GNU/Linux circa 1998. When end users think of VoIP, they thing of Skype, not Ekiga, and only people who are both technically sophisticated and who "get it" (that is, people who want to avoid proprietary software) are the ones using Ekiga. To make matters worse, Ekiga for Windows is poorly supported, poorly functioning, and difficult to configure -- so GNU/Linux users who want to communicate with Windows users are left in a difficult position.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (2)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034266)

It's simple, though -- a Skype-replacement just needs to end up on Leo Laporte's desk. He and his TWiT network cohorts have been ragging on Skype for years, and yet they continue to use it because it

1) works on durn near every OS out there
2) is easy to acquire and install for potential collaborators

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (3, Interesting)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034286)

One reason is that Skype has always worked well even if both call participants are behind a NAT. Which other software had this at the time Skype was launched?

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (5, Informative)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034324)

All the software pieces exist as OSS projects but it's not only the software that made Skype big. It's been the company behind it that signed contracts that let me connect with standard phone networks all around the world. I can call POTS numbers from within Skype, I can get a virtual phone number so phones can call my Skype client. I can redirect my Skype account to a phone number or vice versa, with voice mail. That's something that a software project cannot do: you have to be a company and start competing with Skype.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (5, Informative)

Weezul (52464) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034928)

There were also hoards of VoIP companies offering those services for under half the price charged by Skype, although some bundled the in-dial and out-dial. In fact, there are only a very few marketing heavy VoIP providers like Vonage charging more than Skype. The real issues are :

(1) Skype's user experience obliterates every other VoIP provider : Download & run Skype, make account, done. No tweak this setting if you use symmetric NAT. No please pay us first. etc.

(2) Skype has NAT traversal that afaik equals or beats any other VoIP software & provider combo. In fact, they use almost exactly the same NAT traversal tricks, but they may ask other clients to provide TURN (relay) when STUN fails, and maybe their STUN servers are better too. TURN gets expensive if the calls are all free.

(3) Skpye simplifies finding people you know who use Skype. And they've always encouraged people to talk to strangers, making it more likely that your friends already use Skype.

(4) Skype's encryption gives small businesses greater confidence.

If you wish to compete with Skype, you must (a) match them on PTSN price while offering awesome STUN and TURN, (b) match or beat them at friend finding, (c) beat them on encryption, i.e. use an open source client, preferably Zfone, and (d) offer "something more".

I think the logical "something more" might be encrypted friend-to-friend file sharing, perhaps with discussion threads ala facebook's photos. All IM clients offer file transfers, but no popular ones offer file sharing.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034930)

sipgate provides this. See http://www.sipgate.co.uk/user/tarife.php

Sure, Skype were there first, but there is now some competition. I left Skype when they refused to provide a (real) VoIP client for my Android G1. (I believe they do now, but they've already lost me.)

A landline number that others can dial to call you (equivalent of Skype-in) is free. If I don't answer and someone leaves me a voicemail, then I get the sound file emailed to me. I use this on various PCs, and via Linphone on my Android G1.

It's not quite everything I need, but it's darn close.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034326)

It's very simple, trying to get a non-geek-friend to use anything else than skype is like trying to get an apple user to use something without an apple-logo on it, you've lost the discussion the second it started. Skype works. End-of-Story.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (3, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034678)

Seriously, Skype has been a grudgingly-necessary eyesore for years, and yet we don't seem to have a widely-accepted and/or functionally-equivalent OSS project in the wild. How can this be?

There are plenty of OSS alternatives out there...

All sorts of VoIP softphones, text chat programs, videoconferencing apps...

But that's kind of the problem. Skype is a single company and a single app. There isn't any confusion or choice. You say "I'm on Skype" and folks know how they can get in touch with you. You say "I use Ekiga" and they look at you like you've grown a third eye.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (2)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034696)

There isn't really one. Ekiga is close, but if you've ever tried to use it you'll know it's really tempramental. Pidgin's voice and video support is somewhat popular but I've no idea how well that works either, though it does supposedly interoperate nicely with Google Talk on Windows.

Re:So where's the FLOSS/open codec Skype alternati (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#36035040)

There are a couple. The problem is, even the few that are available for windows, osx, and linux aren't any better than skype.

If you want to do a conference call, you have to run your own server, or find and pay someone.
In Skype, you just pay them and don't have to worry about any technical details or voip lingo.

Skype to be branded... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034046)

Facefuck

And why does /. care? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034062)

Skype doesn't adhere to IETF standards, they don't support VoIP. Companies are being bought by other companies all the time, that's business. Am I suddenly on forbes.com?

Any guesses... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034078)

on how many times Osama has been DP'ed by Saddam and Hitler by now? Or bukkake'ed by Mao and Stalin and Yassir Arafat?

Google looking too? (3, Interesting)

bsharitt (580506) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034126)

It seems that Google is looking at buying it too, which I'm hoping for since they're much more likely to open things up.

Re:Google looking too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034270)

Yeah right, "open things up" just like they did with Gizmo5. You know, buy them and then shut them down so they don't compete with Google Voice/Talk.

Google has no need for Skype other than to snag their entire customer base for Google Talk and Voice.

You'll notice that Google Talk now does voice and Video plus integrates with Voice for POTS calls. They have mobile and desktop clients. It is essentially Skype minus the screen sharing and group conferencing.

Re:Google looking too? (4, Insightful)

Dakman (824764) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034322)

Good point, facebook never opens things up.

https://github.com/facebook [github.com]

Re:Google looking too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034686)

Well, now, that's just not true.

Facebook has opened up ALL the details of my private life to everybody in the world!

Re:Google looking too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034836)

Facebook has opened up ALL the details of my private life to everybody in the world!

After you were foolish enough to post stuff you didn't really want 'just anyone' to see.

Cry me a river.

Captcha: pervert

Time to cancel your Skype account. (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034138)

Not too sure what to replace it with. Google, perhaps. Ugh.

Re:Time to cancel your Skype account. (1)

mpbrede (820514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034684)

Or just tell Skype that you cannot use them if they are part of Facebook? You can always cancel after the deal is done.

I'm conflicted (3, Interesting)

Manip (656104) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034154)

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. On one hand Skype as a company could do with a huge amount of improvement. Their support is frankly the worst I've ever dealt with from a company of their size, and their software is only one release away from breaking again (and never worked correctly on Android).

I don't have any love for Facebook as a company, but frankly I have such a low opinion of Skype that it couldn't get too much worse, at least I hope. The funny thing is that I pay Skype hundreds of dollars a year for a service which is only borderline passable, but just like the telcos they're the only game in town, so there is no motovation for them to improve.

If Google released a competing product tomorrow I'd switch. And, no, Google Talk is NOT remotely comparable to Skype.

Re:I'm conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034312)

Facebook would be even LESS open and LESS helpful when something goes wrong than skype.

So they would be worse for us skype users.

god, I hope not. (0)

Tsu-na-mi (88576) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034164)

Despite Skype's recent disaster with its client (5.x is worse than 4.x), it pales in comparison to how crappy Facebook is.

After years of resisting, I finally caved and opened a Facebook account so I could watch some Tsunami footage on some guy's page. Since then I have tried to search for some "friends" on Facebook only to find it has the clumsiest user interface and lacks a lot of basic features. I wanted to add friends from my high school class (or at least find them). There is no simple, intuitive way to do this, I kinda had to luck across the page that let's me search for people who listed my high school as theirs. Great! Except I cannot limit the search by class year, so I get hundreds, if not thousands of people from the past 20 years since I graduated. When all they need to do is add a "Class of XXXX" filter. How simple it would be.

This is not the only thing wrong. For a site worth billions, it is incredibly primitive and lacking in features. I helped my mom upload a picture for her profile. When there was some adjustments available, I expected to be able to select a part of the image and crop it for her profile. Such functionality is not hard, and I'd expect it form such a major player like Facebook, but alas, they are in the stone age in this regard. The lolcats site is higher-tech.

Facebook sucks, and I would not want to trust them with skype. I use skype to talk to friends online pretty much every day. I use the 4.x client, and skype is decent enough to let me continue to do so without forcing me to upgrade to their new, crappier client. Recommend I upgrade? Yes. Force? No. Facebook has lucked into a following despite its shoddiness. It's like a retarded kid winning the lotto. Zuckerberg is king retard in this.

Re:god, I hope not. (1)

gislifb (1979154) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034396)

I agree with most of the things you say but I just wanted to point out that you can easily crop profile pictures on facebook ;)

Re:god, I hope not. (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034728)

Great! Except I cannot limit the search by class year, so I get hundreds, if not thousands of people from the past 20 years since I graduated. When all they need to do is add a "Class of XXXX" filter. How simple it would be.

Wow. I think even Livejournal can do that, and it doesn't even pretend to be a social network, let alone one oriented towards keeping in touch with classmates.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034216)

People facebook so they don't actually have to TALK to their 'friends'. This makes no sense at all.

Confidentiality and insider trading laws, anyone? (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034274)

Anyone at Facebook in a position to know anything about any such possible deal is not legally allowed to say anything. If Facebook isn't dumb, they started any discussions with a confidentiality agreement due to their legal requirements not to say anything. Also, since Skype is privately owned, the majority owner would have nothing to gain by publicizing the talks.

That means that whoever is talking to the press about this is either:
1. some other party with a motivation for derailing the deal, such as eBay (a minority owner of Skype),
B. an insider at Facebook illegally attempting to manipulate the stock price, or
III. somebody with no clue who wants to seem cool to the business press.

Re:Confidentiality and insider trading laws, anyon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034302)

I thought Facebook was privately owned too?

Privacy in China at stake (5, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034358)

Adam Connor with Facebook previously stated the following; apparently in reference to gaining access to the Chinese market.

"Maybe we are going to censor our content in some countries” ” We have dealt with many unpleasant situations because we allow too much freedom of speech in the countries that have not experimented this until now" http://www.gev.com/2011/04/facebook-and-freedom-of-speech/ [gev.com]

I know for a fact many users and businesses use Skype because it's encrypted end-to-end. Now, that may have already been compromised some time ago and thus no longer secure in China. But, I for one believe that Facebook would hand over the keys to the Chinese government in a heartbeat. I doubt Google would as there's already a bit of contention between those two.

Re:Privacy in China at stake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034740)

China already has the keys.

They made standard Skype illegal in China, and TOM-Skype is a legal supported Skype-compatible client that started out giving the keys to China.

Re:Privacy in China at stake (5, Insightful)

cowtamer (311087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034796)

Privacy in China at stake

* Privacy Everywhere at Stake *

Fixed that for you. Do you really want Facebook to know the phone numbers of everyone you call with Skype and share it with 300 of your closest friends in one of their inevitable revisions of "privacy" practices?

Re:Privacy in China at stake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034882)

It's not encrypted end-to-end when security services can listen in. Do a quick google search and you'll see how Austria bragged about being let in. Skype is like a real telco when it comes to cooperating with authorities and let agencies listen in on "private" conversations.

..and there is no way to delete your skype account (1)

bunhed (208100) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034362)

bloody facebook, if they can't get my info voluntarily, they just buy it. adios skype!

Facebook: putting ing in your soc (5, Insightful)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034468)

Don't worry, they'll recommend that you keep Skype open in the background... For added connectivity.

I'd rather put Skype in the hands of GLaDOS.

Reason to drop Skype (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034526)

This would be a reason to drop Skype. I know many people, who don't use Skype because their protocol isn't open, they are not opensource or not SIP based. No reasons for me not to use it, it just works very well, even on Linux.

But being forced to open a FB account? Do not want...

Reason to drop Skype (1)

DollyTheSheep (576243) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034560)

This would be a reason to drop Skype. I know many people, who don't use Skype because their protocol isn't open, they are not opensource or not SIP based. No reasons for me not to use it, it just works very well, even on Linux. But being forced to open a FB account? Do not want... I abhorr FB and it's poor privacy policies and conduct.

Give us your ID, we'll take it for free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034572)

In a next logical move they should buy Google and make the Internet their own. Privacy? Big Face Brother Book got all your moves ...

Voice your disapproval (5, Interesting)

mpbrede (820514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034620)

If, like me, you do not want all your private information "integrated" with Facebook and its ever-changing use of private information, maybe this is the time to contact Skype (maybe via posts to their blog?) and letting them know how you feel about having all your calling information and other Skype data "integrated" with facebook. I for one have long ago deleted my Facebook profile after I started seeing how pervasive their tracking and data agglomeration on individual has become and how lax they are about sharing that data with other vendors and application developers. I share Julian Assange's assertion that Facebook is "near-evil" and cannot imagine continuing using Skype if it is a Facebook extension.

So long and thanks for all the hassle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034724)

Skype was a borderline useful tool for a while. But if Zuckerberg gets his claws into it, the risks will far outweight the convenience. Gonna blank my account now, and wait for the fall out. Hopefully, this is just Skype playing coy, to improve it's position in negotiating with someone else...

Do Not Want... (5, Insightful)

cowtamer (311087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36034762)

I like Skype -- I'm a paying customer. I like Facebook. I wouldn't trust Facebook (the company) with anything that I don't mind becoming 100% public, including my credit card, and use it with that knowledge in mind. I am not necessarily interested in Skypeing with my Facebook friends or the awkwardness of socially networking with my Skype contacts (who are mostly business collaborators). [One would hope that everyone has learned the lesson of Google Buzz].

I don't like the fact that the Internet is turning into AOL 2012.

Skype is Garbage Anyway (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36034764)

So glad I jumped that slag heap months ago.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...