Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Microsoft Kills Skype For Asterisk

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the we're-not-evil-any-more dept.

Microsoft 271

Avalon73 writes "I've been using Skype for Asterisk (Digium's native Skype client for their PBX software) since it was in beta 2 years ago. Today, I received an email from Digium stating that Skype (read: Microsoft) has decided to end the agreement that made the integration possible, and Digium will stop selling the module on July 26th. Support for us existing users will be there for the next 2 years, with Skype's option to renew at that time, but I'll believe that when I see it. So much for Microsoft's promise not to screw over the existing Skype user base."

cancel ×

271 comments

Microsoft and Skype (5, Funny)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232574)

It has begun [aijaa.com]

Re:Microsoft and Skype (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232608)

Heh, I was just gonna post that.

I foresee a world where Skype is MSN-ified into uselessness.

Alternatives?

Re:Microsoft and Skype (5, Funny)

TheLandyman (1130027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232730)

Alternatives?

Facetime? :)

Re:Microsoft and Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233518)

Only if you do not mind sucking Steve Jobs dick.

Open standards? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233490)

The only thing SIP is really lacking is NAT traversal, right?

Re:Microsoft and Skype (5, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233002)

More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.

It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.

Or (5, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233454)

More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.

It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.

Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232606)

If you can't connect Skype to SIP, why do you need it? Skype to skype is only useful when both people are on a computer and skype out/in is less capable/dynamic than a custom SIP bridge. I'd imagine this would drive business users away from instead of towards Skype.

Re:What's the point? (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232774)

Yep, they just sealed their fate, at least as far as any future phone systems I might install. I had been delaying buying chan_skype for Asterisk since they hadn't made it advanced enough to handle some of my needs for Asterisk but now it looks like I just saved myself a whole lot of $$$, and redirected even more that would have gone to Microsoft. I'm really glad they made this decision for me now rather than later.

Re:What's the point? (3, Insightful)

Hultis (1969080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232904)

Is anyone surprised? Microsoft has a long history [wikipedia.org] of bad ideas [wikipedia.org] and costly projects [wikipedia.org] met with very bad reviews [wikipedia.org] . However, they usually keep pumping money [wikipedia.org] into them [wikipedia.org] until they are successful. If that doesn't work they just use their monopoly [wikipedia.org] to make sure people use their software anyway^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W in an attempt to make people use their software [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What's the point? (2)

Hultis (1969080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233068)

Seriously though, I think that what Microsoft really wants with Skype is their userbase (and maybe their audio tech), and over time they will all be funneled into Windows Live. For some reason they don't think this is worth the money it costs as the users are unlikely to move on to Windows Live so they just cancel it.

What's the problem? (2)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233072)

If you can't connect Skype to SIP, why do you need it?

But you can connect Skype to SIP: Skype Connect for SIP [skype.com]

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233240)

Except that requires a SIP PBX, which for most businesses will mean purchasing a hosted SIP gateway from a third party, at which point they may as well just use the service from their SIP provider.

Dear God (-1, Troll)

Medevilae (1456015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232614)

That's HARDLY screwing the Skype userbase. Sure it might not be a good thing necessarily, but it certainly doesn't affect the majority. Stop crying over spilled milk.

Re:Dear God (1)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232668)

not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase. Particularly of paying customers. I use skype for linux. I am not part of the majority, and when they drop support for linux and change the protocols, guess what: I'll be a screwed customer. Customers are not only the majority slice.

Re:Dear God (0)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232782)

not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase

Yes it does.

Customers are not only the majority slice.

No, but the customer base is. Hence the term base, as in the most substantial part; not the fringe elements or corner cases.

Re:Dear God (4, Informative)

ThePiMan2003 (676665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232824)

not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase

Yes it does.

Customers are not only the majority slice.

No, but the customer base is. Hence the term base, as in the most substantial part; not the fringe elements or corner cases.

Actually the userbase is all of the users.

  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/user+base [reference.com]

Re:Dear God (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233108)

That definition is cited as referencing "The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, (C) Denis Howe 2010 http://foldoc.org/ [foldoc.org] " whoever that is.

And Mr. Howe seems to have taken liberties with the root word of base, which means "the fundamental part of something." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/base [merriam-webster.com]

Moreover TFL says "This change should not affect any existing users of Skype for Asterisk," which doesn't conflict with your cited definition.

In other words, all your base are belong to me.

Re:Dear God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232872)

not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase.

I find it hard to accept "not the majority of the userbase" is properly representative of "the userbase" in such a way that affecting them can be in any way, shape, or form metaphorically "screwing the userbase".

Or, put differently, if it's not the majority, and not even a large portion, that doesn't at all count as representing the whole. If some Florida state law negatively affects the followers of the Westboro Baptist Church, does that constitute "screwing the United States"?

Re:Dear God (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233310)

Up until now, this form of use has been an option for users. Whether they partook of it or not.

Now it is being removed as an option.

Therefore, if any given user of Skype attempts to exercise this option in the future, they're screwed.

Re:Dear God (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232702)

It is a foreshadowing of things to come, and hence why is so upsetting (Ive never even used Asterisk, honestly).

Re:Dear God (1)

spaceplanesfan (2120596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232740)

Linux isn't majority of Skype user base ether.
First they came for communists, but I wasn't one...

On the other hand, skype isn't such a big deal.
Me thinks, could somebody create a Skype alternative service and profit a lot?
Like what is so special in skype? Is it that hard to code another one?

I know that Linux has skype alternatives, but they are all based on SIP standard which is somewhat NAT/firewall unfriendly.
So such alternative app could use their own (and hopefully open) protocol for communication.

I don't buy an argument of Skype user base. It really doesn't matter, cause you use it to talk with your friends.
And really you can guide even a retard to install a program on his system, or do that yourself if you visit your relatives/friends.
So the fact that skype is installed, and $SOME_OTHER_VOIP_CLENT isn't a good argument.

Re:Dear God (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232870)

Like what is so special in skype? Is it that hard to code another one?

Skype was the first to get good market adoption and thus sort of became the de-facto standard so there is a good chance that you can use it to speak to someone. It might not be the best, but it works well enough for most people to not feel the need to change (with all the effort that that entails). In some ways it is like MS Windows, the de-facto desktop standard, not the best but good enough for most people.

Re:Dear God (1)

spaceplanesfan (2120596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233044)

Yes, but my point is that there is very little vendor lock-up in regard to skype.
To switch all you have to do is to tell your relatives to do few clicks with their mouses,
and like you can even guide them.
(Assuming that skype alternative runs on windows of course).

Its is even easier that switching browsers, because, browsers often have to display poor coded HTML pages that were tested on IE only, so user might complain that his new browser doesn't render that or that program.
With switch from skype its dead easy. He will just know that to talk with me he needs to start $PROGRAM (and he can even keep using skype).

So as soon as better that skype alternative emerges, it can capture millions of users.

Re:Dear God (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233550)

It's not that easy. I seldom use Skype to communicate with friends and never with relatives. I use it mostly for business, to get in touch with my customers and my coworkers (both chat and voice). I can't tell them that they have to start using a new messaging platform only to communicate with me. It will be very inconvenient and they'll invite me to call them with a phone which will cost me money and I'll still be left without a chat. They'll hate to have to spend money to call me so this is bad for my business.

So either all the world move to a Skype alternative or I'm effectively locked in. This is worse than MS Office's lock in, because there are other programs that are compatible with its file formats but there is nothing that is compatible with Skype.

Re:Dear God (3, Interesting)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232776)

The big thing is it's microsoft not even waiting a few weeks before yanking support for things. Because they are not a majority does not mean it isn't a huge issue. Next will most likely be the linux client, possibly followed by the android and IOS apps, in the end we could be looking at skype being windows and Windows phone only.

Re:Dear God (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232838)

Actually, I'm not sure it's a bad thing. After the dominance of Skype is broken, maybe a truly open solution will win.

Re:Dear God (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232882)

>>>it certainly doesn't affect the majority. Stop crying over spilled milk.

By this logic, you will keep your mouth shut when Mickeysoft stops supporting Skype for Linux or Mac OSes. Correct? (Somehow I don't believe you will.)

Re:Dear God (2)

cachapa (558513) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233238)

Exactly why I'm very worried about this. Here's my prediction just in case it really happens, so I can link yo it and appear to be a keen industry analyst: over the next year MS will start changing Skype's protocol, until it's incompatible with current software. The Windows version will (of course) always be up to date while other platforms will lag behind, according to their userbase: macos will be fine, android and ios a bit less so, and Linux will simply be forgotten. This will enable them to slowly kill competition without scaring the userbase into adopting an alternative. Fortunately Google talk now works on more devices with voice, so there might be a decent alternative in the near future.

Re:Dear God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233370)

Here's my prediction just in case it really happens, so I can link yo it and appear to be a keen industry analyst:

Damn shame about the spelling mistake :( unless you're some kind of hip-hop guy...

Re:Dear God (1)

Medevilae (1456015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233520)

No, by my logic I'll complain when they actually cut a Skype service that people use and was free to start with. You do know what Asterisk is, correct? Besides, comparing this to cutting support to an OS is ridiculous. Sure, you could see it as a foreshadowing of what may be to come, but it's not the same thing at all. Also what's with the hypersensitivity? Troll? Really? Oh wait- it wasn't because I offended your milk, it was because I didn't bash Microsoft directly!

Embrace, Extend, Extingush (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232618)

Looks like Microsoft went ahead and skipped steps 1 and 2 this time just to make things easier for everybody.

Asterisk Kills Microsoft For Skype (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232624)

Would be much more fun!

Re:Asterisk Kills Microsoft For Skype (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232648)

Would be much more fun!

No no no no NOOOO

You wasted a perfectly good joke there .. you should have said something like

Asterix [asterix.com] Kills Microsoft For Skype

Re:Asterisk Kills Microsoft For Skype (3, Funny)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232766)

Asterix and Obelix killing Microsoft would be fun and enjoyable indeed.

How are you screwed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232634)

You have two whole years, which is a life time in terms of technology, and even after that you can renew. This is just meaningless anti-MS waffle.

Re:How are you screwed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232728)

even after that you can renew

No: after that Microsoft has the option of choosing to allow you to renew.

Re:How are you screwed? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232760)

You may rest assured that in those 2 years you will not receive any updates whatsoever, neither for security nor compatibility. Whether you will be able to renew or not is also something you may start to believe once those 2 years are over.

Re:How are you screwed? (5, Insightful)

ThePiMan2003 (676665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233064)

which is a life time in terms of technology

A lifetime in terms of computer technology. In terms of phone technology, where you might install a phone system and not really touch it for 10 years... 2 years is very short.

Re:How are you screwed? (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233498)

Phone tech still moves pretty damn slow.

By all rights we should be on the final phases of replacing VOIP with whatever would follow.. as it stands we arn't even really at mainstream VOIP yet!

Beginning of the end of Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232642)

The fact that it is now owned by Microsoft will kill Skype in the long run. They will rename it, alienate the rest of the computing world, and alternatives will pop up.

just my prediction.

Quick to blame Microsoft (4, Insightful)

halsneb (2195802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232660)

The Microsoft/Skype deal is nowhere near completion, and Microsoft currently has no say in how Skype runs their business. Also the negotiations on this software were most likely ongoing long before the Microsoft/Skype merger was announced, and most likely a business decisions based on profit margins and longevity. I can't help but wonder why people are so quick to blame Microsoft for issues that they could not possible be responsible for.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (4, Insightful)

chemosh6969 (632048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232806)

It's always easy to blame Microsoft for something, whether or not they have anything to do with it. Same with opposing political parties :)

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232812)

You must be new to IT in general. If you don't think MS had an influence on this you just don't understand how cut-throat American corporate ideology can be. The ratio between who will benefit (financially) and who will lose out (consumers) is going to be an increasingly growing number that is already massive.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232878)

What makes you think anyone at microsoft even knew what Asterisk was before this /. post? :) (coming from an MS employee...)

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232848)

Because it's Slashdot, and they're Microsoft. Duh. You're right of course. At this point not even sucking up to the potential new boss by killing some program he probably won't like doesn't even make sense. There are enough regulatory and other hurdles between here and "Microsoft takes possession of Skype" that doing any kind of actions based on that assumption is silly.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232896)

Because they're idiots that simply want to hate on Microsoft.

There is no way that Microsoft is related to this decision because Microsoft would open itself wide to more government interventions. Until the merger/deal is completed, the two companies will not start working together. This is true for all businesses.

People are obviously free to hate Microsoft and suggest that they are not following regulations, but to suggest it over something so small is pretty sad.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (1, Troll)

steelfood (895457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232928)

Considering the timing of the announcement, and Microsoft's business practices in the past, I imagine there's plenty of reasons to suspect Microsoft's hand in the matter.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232942)

And the timing is a coincidence? I'm guessing it'll compete with a potential Microsoft product or service so they made the killing of it a condition for the deal. No business makes major changes in the middle of a deal unless they have to do it.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232982)

Whilst I totally agree with the sentiment, particularly the likely unfair Ms bashing that slash dot sometimes causes... unfortunately you might not be right.

Skype and Ms will have some kind of pre deal agreement in place which very likely could require (that may not be a fair word since no one forced Skype to sign this) Skype to do certain things. Now clearly there are some things that Skype wouldn't agree to (like turn off their service) pre completion of the deal, but some things. For example cutting off a non core (likely unprofitable) revenue stream that Ms want rid of fast. Sure. That would absolutely be on the table.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (2)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233056)

"Microsoft currently has no say in how Skype runs their business"

You really think the purchasing company has no influence over the company they're buying? They can make specific upcoming business decisions paramount to buy out! You have no idea whether or not Microsoft had something to do with this decision. I can't help but wonder why you think you do.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233266)

Actually, while the deal is pending, Microsoft is legally prohibited from exerting influence over Skype. Until the deal goes through, Microsoft has less influence over Skype than they had before the deal.

You don't mess with the SEC.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (5, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233346)

You don't mess with the SEC.

You and I don't mess with the SEC. Large financial institutions and significant corporate donors to political campaigns do whatever the fuck they want.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233060)

That could be true. Who knows? May be the contract had expired but if the company has a new owner taking over soon why would they extend the contract? It might not be good for the new owner. This is all speculation. I just wasted my time writing this and you reading it. Just wasting computer resources on this one not to mention energy and it's environmental impact. I better buy some carbon credits.

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233070)

or AT&T ...

Had a coworker tell me his t-mobile service is terrible now that it is owned by AT&T.
I figured there was no point in arguing with him.

note: I don't particularly care for AT&T

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233092)

The Microsoft/Skype deal is nowhere near completion, and Microsoft currently has no say in how Skype runs their business.

And you know for a fact that killing this integration isn't part of the requirements from Microsoft for the deal to close?

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233100)

Because Skype goes around terminating long-standing contracts has nothing to do with them being sold to Microsoft.... Wait, shouldn't they at least ask MS people if this contract has value to MS, since, you know, the contract was about to become MS property (liability)?

Well, I guess they did! A more likely scenario is, that MS exec was reviewing Skype's current agreements (preparing for acquisition, no less), and said "ftw is Asterisk? Get rid of it!"

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233166)

Really? Microsoft has no say at all?

You act as if you've never seen someone sell something expensive before. The buyer usually has quite a bit of say in how things play out...

Re:Quick to blame Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233466)

True, but that does not mean that some skype manager was going to approve a new contract with digium (which is a direct competitor in the same field as the Office Communication Server/Lync), without asking his new masters for an approval. Pre-MS-Skype had notting to gain from killing off skype-for-asterisk, it was fully developed and a "free" revenue-stream with digium doing all the legwork (sales, support, license-managment/servers). And yeah, there are coincidences in the world, but not in the IT.

Asterisk users (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232700)

I guess both of you will have to run windows now.

Re:Asterisk users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232910)

Thank you.

Re:Asterisk users (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233124)

We're talking about asterisk here... they could just run windows inside a VM inside asterisk and load the skype client inside that... I'm sure asterisk has the capability to patch into such a beast documented somewhere inside its bowels.

Re:Asterisk users (3, Funny)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233322)

Well, I dunno, I know a lot of people that use asterisk.

I mean, it's on everybody's keyboard, see -> *

Microsoft can... (1)

imyy4u3 (1290108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232724)

kiss my as...terisk! Asterisk is a key part of Skype's popularity and is where VOIP and video phone conferencing is trending towards these days. I wonder if this will be the death of Skype?

Re:Microsoft can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232850)

Asterisk is a key part of Skype's popularity

Of course [youtube.com] . That's why most people are using Skype for Asterisk instead of, you know, the native skype client.

Don't worry, I'm sure 2012 will be the year of Linux on the desktop!

This is bull (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232742)

This has nothing to do with Microsoft, that is just troll bait. The deal isn't completed yet, they are awaiting regulatory approval before going through with it, and that is likely months away. This is Skype running as Skype, completely independent from Microsoft. Any interference at this stage and scrutiny would be an infraction even Microsoft wouldn't risk.

Re:This is bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233220)

Stop trying to confuse the issue with facts.

Cocks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232744)

Dongs

Best thing that could ever happen to Ekiga! (1)

NoGenius (976447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232750)

Seriously -- Nobody actually believed Microsoft was going to do anything but screw over the user base, did they? Already have my Ekiga account...works well and runs on an open standard.

Slanted Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232818)

"............, but I'll believe that when I see it. So much for Microsoft's promise not to screw over the existing Skype user base."

Can you leave your personal commentary out of the article? It ruins our ability to formulate our own opinion.

You can still pay for SIP (1)

mattbee (17533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232874)

SIP still seems alive and well [skype.com] though. They get a monthly revenue stream from that though; seems a slightly safer option for Skype users wanting interoperability.

Re:You can still pay for SIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233274)

This does not allow you to call skype (never did), it only allow's skype users to call your sip-pbx (and therefore grow's their "network").

Typical jumping to conclusions (4, Insightful)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232898)

Considering just how much existing VoIP crap (including Microsoft's) runs over SIP, has anyone considered that it's possible that Skype simply decided to kill off the third party hack and focus on building native SIP connectivity? It would certainly jibe with their sudden desire to look more appealing to business users, with the ability to plug into virtually any IP-PBX solution in existence (and let's be honest, in the corporate world no-one runs Asterisk).

Funny, if Google had bought Skype and this same thing had happened, people would all be describing it as I just did. But hey, don't let rational thought get in the way of your hate-fest.

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233016)

Lots of businesses run Asterisk, even if it's not called that. Ever heard of Avaya? Ford uses it. I am sure many other large corporations do as well.

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (1)

randy of the redwood (1565519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233340)

Sorry, you lost me in the middle there. I agree that a lot of businesses use Asterisk, and in my business (call centers), a lot of companies use Asterisk in interesting ways such as bridging between systems.

What was the bit about Avaya though? Avaya does not use Asterisk in any way that I am aware of. They build their own proprietary (yes some are Linux based) systems, not open source / Asterisk based.

If I missed something, I'd love an update.

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233020)

has anyone considered that it's possible that Skype simply decided to kill off the third party hack and focus on building native SIP connectivity

http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/business/skype-connect/

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233066)

It wasn't two days ago when news broke that Google was directly preventing rooted Android users from accessing certain services. How many posts were saying "well, it's the movie studios behind this, and there will be a work around, and rooted users wouldn't use this service anyway"? Just a bunch of excuses of why we shouldn't call Google out for an obviously dick move.

Of course you post anything remotely positive on this site about Microsoft and you're immediately labeled a shill and an astroturfer. For all its strengths, Slashdot can really be a joke.

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233158)

Convicted habitual criminals are rarely popular.

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233290)

with the ability to plug into virtually any IP-PBX solution in existence

Clearly you've never actually tried to integrate SIP stacks. The hurdles, workarounds, configuration, and general nightmare still end up unworkable far too often. SIP is very flexible -- which means it's not necessarily compatible.

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (1)

Zott (61346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233300)

The Microsoft way of doing things is to keep things closed. Skype is closed, SIP - whether you're using Asterisk or some other solution - is open. The Asterisk product was a good way to provide an organization with a gateway they could control to bridge SIP in the enterprise with Skype. Who cares about Asterisk... if there are other gateways between SIP and Skype? Except there aren't. It *appears* that this is a way to keep what's closed closed. That's the underlying pain here.

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (1)

cdrnet (1582149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233388)

You are of course aware that Microsoft's own VoIP Stack (Communication Server/Lync, Communicator etc) is fully based on SIP and RTP?

Re:Typical jumping to conclusions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233488)

Like Gizmo5?
Google bought it, shut it down, and now offers no SIP at all.

Can someone explain... (3, Insightful)

ZamesC (611197) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232900)

how refusing NEW activations is screwing over EXISTING customers?

Re:Can someone explain... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233418)

If you need to move a license from one box to another you have to re-activate. If they remove activation then you would be stuck. So it would mean you would have to stay on the same hardware with the same nic. Otherwise you would be out of luck. Please not the notice says "Skype for Asterisk remains for sale and activation until July 26, 2011. Please complete any purchases and activations before that date." As I read this it implies that activations and possibly re-activations will be offline after July 26th. We will see if more clairifications come out on this.

Skype / Microsoft platform and everyone else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36232918)

How could you honestly expect anything else from MS?

Why because they said something?

They exist to make money not friends, come on people wake up, be real!

Of course they are going to say things you want to hear. But if you're not on the MS platform you can pretty much guarantee that you will be treated like a second or third class citizen (depending on how much of a risk there is to MSs business interests).

MS makes business decisions period. (Good or bad? Only time can tell)

Don't like it? Then find an alternative. There are other options.

Always a risk with proprietary data formats (1)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232956)

Would you be happy with being forced to buy "GM only petrol" for your GM car? Be forced to have a Channel XYZ TV to watch Channel XYZ? Only be able to buy a memory stick for your Sony?

Re:Always a risk with proprietary data formats (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233206)

Yet video gamers eat it up. You have to have a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games and vice versa.

Re:Always a risk with proprietary data formats (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233496)

yea and there for a while off brand memory stick pro duo's had major issues with working in PSP's, dont know if that is true today (my non sony brand 4 gig works fine and its 2008 vintage, but it was one of the few brands to never report problems in sony products)

Nothing new (1)

Mercano (826132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36232978)

We got screwed at work after bought Onfolio. First, they discontinued the pro version we bought and were using in Firefox in favor of a free dumbed down IE only version, then they eventually killed that. Wouldn't mind too much, but they also turned off the activation servers, meaning if we have to reinstall Windows due to, say, a virus, we can't reinstall the copy Onfolio we had bought. I guess we hit the "Extinguish" stage of the business plan.

Re:Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233012)

Shut the fuck up you fucking lump of shit. Microsoft didn't do anything here and you're a low down bitch. You've made an ass out of yourself. I hope people tell you to go fuck yourself in no uncertain way. Cunt.

Re:Nothing new (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233364)

I don't believe the OP you replied to even mentioned one word about Microsoft in any way.. so I'm pretty sure it was YOU that just made an ass out of yourself...

Re:Nothing new (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233182)

Take an image of the machine and create a VM. Then create lots of copies. Now you are as good as immune to any but the worst disaster.

Microsoft's failing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233000)

And this is the reason why Microsoft no longer leads, and is behind Apple and IBM in market cap. Although Apple and IBM aren't perfect, these days, who wants to go with technology from a company who doesn't support anything other than what they produce, which is such an "old school" way of thinking. Microsoft - if you want to thrive, change your culture (starting at the top).

Personally, I hope you continue as you are and die a horrible death :-)

I called it... (0)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233084)

I KNEW IT!! I FSCKING KNEW IT!!

I said the day they announced the MS/Skype buyout, that MS would trash Skype and withdraw support for open source users. You watch -- the Linux client will die, though I know it's laying abandoned and starving already, and so will the Android client. Farewell, Skype of old, we knew ye...

Re:I called it... (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233326)

Yes, that's why this has happened before MS has any operational control of Skype because the merger hasn't finished yet.

This is exactly like the time when my sister blamed me for turning off her coffee pot while I was still an hour's drive away from her place.

Keep grinding that anti-MS axe though, perhaps one day you'll use it for something useful.

Re:I called it... (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233516)

part of the nokia deal? Keep it running on symbian and on wp7.

So what (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233212)

Who cares.....screw the 50 people who use Asterisk. Seriously.

Not Microsoft's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233258)

This is probably NOT Microsoft's fault. Skype was loosing money and originally planned for an IPO if they were not solicited by Google, Facebook and then Microsoft. The business decision was probably made way before Microsoft's deal.

You're quite to blame Microsoft because you had a bias, and it's understandable given the situation.

I will begin moving my clients off of skype (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36233402)

im a web developer, and i have been contacting with my clients through skype when they chose it. now, i will be moving out of skype and to other instant messenger / voip applications. i have numerous clients, and will probably have a lot of clients into the future at this rate, and i have the clout and goodwill to require them to contact me without skype.

im doing this, to prevent experiencing usual microsoft bullshit like one regularly encounters while dealing with them.

enjoy your new acquisition microsoft. without me and my clients.

It's articles like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36233408)

that are driving me to go elsewhere for my tech news. I mean come on, it's obvious Microsoft has nothing to do with this, they don't own the company and won't for many months, and can't dictate to Skype who they work with now. WTF is Slashdot posting obvious bullshit like this?

Why even post anything at all about Microsoft? Are they relevant to you? You folks act like the kid brother still. Grow the fuck up already.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...