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 Finally Arrives On Microsoft Phones

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the welcome-to-yesterday dept.

Microsoft 151

judgecorp writes "Skype has finally delivered version 1.0 of Skype for Windows Phone, bringing support for its parent Microsoft's mobile platform up to the level of that enjoyed by rivals Android and iPhone. from the article: 'Skype for Windows Phone is available in 18 different languages and will be available on most local Windows Phone Marketplaces within the next 48 hours. The app features the ability to make free voice and video calls to other Skype users as well as affordable calls to landlines and mobiles using Skype credit over a 4G, 3G or Wi-Fi connection.'"

cancel ×

151 comments

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

Free phone calls? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39770759)

I'm sure the carriers will just love this and push windows phones even harder in their stores.

Re:Free phone calls? (4, Insightful)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770789)

I'm sure the carriers will just love this and push windows phones even harder in their stores.

Yeah. They will push other phones, without Skype. Oh wait...

Re:Free phone calls? (2)

lipanitech (2620815) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771501)

I can honestly say I have never seen anyone with a windows mobile device besides Microsoft employees.

Re:Free phone calls? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771727)

I can honestly say I have never seen you leave your moms basement.

Re:Free phone calls? (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772627)

I know on ex-Nokia employee with one... Oh wait, I forgot they've all but officially merged!

Re:Free phone calls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771633)

Bada 2.0

Re:Free phone calls? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771867)

Bada doesn't have skype? Even symbian has it (and had it longer then any other mobile OS back when skype allowed 3rd party clients). I would imagine there is at least some skype support in bada?

Re:Free phone calls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39772321)

Apparently there is a malfunction with Slashdot's vast memory banks.
Anyone recall Skype for Pocket PC? I use to run Skype on my phone back in 2005. the problem was it would wear down the batteries if you left it open for receiving calls. Nonetheless, it was usable.

Re:Free phone calls? (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771849)

So... carriers aren't pushing the iPhone because it has iMessage (bypassing text revenue) and FaceTime (equivalent to Skype), as well as the ability to install Skype?

Did you think for even two seconds before posting that? Or were you just champing at the bit to post a knee-jerk bashing of Windows Phone (if you'll excuse my slightly mixed metaphors)?

Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken. (5, Insightful)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770793)

Unfortunately, you still can't receive calls without having the app open in the foreground... sort of defeats the purpose of having Skype on your phone, unless you're the kind of person that only MAKES calls.

Seems WinMo is the only platform with this restriction... works fine on Android and I'm guessing iOS too?

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39770823)

Can someone confirm? The fact this guy called Windows Phone 7 "WinMo" kind of suggests he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (4, Informative)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770847)

The same issue was present in the Beta. Unfortunately yes, the client goes completely inactive when its in the background.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770859)

The fact this guy called Windows Phone 7 "WinMo" kind of suggests he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Why? Everyone I know calls them WinMo phones, too. Microsoft may call it something else, but they're Windows Mobile phones, therefore, WinMo.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771053)

because on windows mobile phones you could actually have background apps and proper skype... and a lot of other things.
whilst on windows phone you don't. that's why people insist on calling them windows phones, even if it's 7 and windows mobile 6.5 was the last version - but really looking at it from usability point of view in terms of sw support etc, it's rather a totally different line of products(for now).

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771373)

You read too much into people using the term "WinMo". It's not necessarily meant to imply disparagement, it's simply a portmanteau. It's a WINdows MObile phone, hence WinMo. When talking about Android phones, I don't say "Honeycomb Android" or "Ice Cream Sandwich Android", I say "Android" and most everyone understands completely well that I mean the OS as a whole, not a particular flavor of it.

We're not in a sales environment, so I guess I really don't see why the distinction is that important. Besides, I'm betting pretty much everyone here knew exactly what the GP meant when he said WinMo and understood that he probably wasn't referring to prior versions that ran on obsolete handsets. If someone actually did experience some confusion there, please feel free to retort...

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772951)

But it does make a difference.. Windows Mobile was/is actually functional.. Windows Phone 7 is not.. sorry but WinMo has always referenced later versions of WinCE. Windows Phone is to WinCE what Dos is to Windows 3.1.. all they share is a parent owner and an hardware architecture.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773507)

no, this is how it is in the mobile applications industry. windows phone is the new shit and windows mobile is the old shit, if you're asking for a windows mobile application to do something you'll be referred to some wm 6.5 apps. if you're marketing yourself as a windows phone coder then you're doing the new shit, in other words .net on "windows phone" phones. it wasn't me who came out with the idea to brand it so but some reason behind it is the fact that windows mobile software will not run on windows phone(nokia sort of fucked up at one time when they broke application compatibility between s60 2.x and 3.x - and then renamed to symbian^3 without breaking compatibility..).

it matters especially because windows mobile doesn't have these restrictions for applications and some companies still rely on windows mobile sw and windows mobile 6.1/6.5 phones are indeed even possible to buy to this day.

of course "everyone knew", but "Why?" was asked on the issue.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (2)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772151)

They are NOT "Windows Mobile" phones. The last version of "Windows Mobile" was 6.5.

Win7 is a 'Windows Phone'. It's a completely different animal. Call it "Mango" for short, or "WP7". But calilng it "WinMo" just advertises that you don't know what your'e talking about. WinMo vs. WP7 is apples and oranges. Completely different beasts. And NOBODY I know calls them "WinMo" phones... because they're not.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772651)

I think bitching about it this extensively advertises an irrational need to defend the brand on your part. What the shit do you care? It's a mobile phone. Running windows. Hence, a "Windows Mobile phone". WinMo, for short. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that it's not Windows Mobile 6.5 we're talking about when discussing it these days, years after that OS has been rendered obsolete.

Thanks for your personal anecdote, though. I'll take it with as much weight as you've obviously taken my own.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773477)

I think bitching about it this extensively advertises an irrational need to defend the brand on your part.

It's all just part of Microsoft's death spiral.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (4, Informative)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39774539)

You're missing the point.

"WinMo" is not just a damanged brand, it legitimately sucks and people avoid it because of its history.

"WP7" is a different beast all together, is very good, and should not in any way be associated with "WinMo". It's NOT the same thing. There is zero app compatibility or UI experience in common between the two.

Your laziness in using correct terminology notwithstanding.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39774769)

"WP7" is a different beast all together, is very good, and should not in any way be associated with "WinMo". It's NOT the same thing.

No shit. It's a WINdows operating system. On a MObile phone. Rather than saying Windows Phone 7 (where the fuck is the 7 coming from? "It's NOT the same thing" so why are they continuing the numbering scheme? If they don't want the association there, why foster it in that way?) we just say WinMo, just as we have for the last decade or so that Windows Mobile Phones have existed.

To clarify, again, you're assuming I'm trying to lump them together and I'm not. I don't give a flying fuck what "they" call it, it's a fucking phone running some flavor of Windows on it. Maybe you discuss them all individually and qualify every descriptor as to phone OS with specifics (It's not just Android, oh ho ho, it's Ice Cream Sandwich Android, big difference!. It's not iOS, it's iOS 5, big difference!) but as a layman, we never do.

Again, the ferocity with which you're trying to force the distinction belies either some vested interest on your part or some weird need you feel to defend the brand. What the hell do you care what we refer to it as?

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770877)

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (3, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771015)

Windows Phone 7.5 suspends apps when they leave the foreground. The only background activity that an app may do are periodic background agents which run 30 minutes apart and some streaming functionality through the multimedia framework. If your app falls outside that model (as Skype does) then tough shit you're going to have to gimp it to make it work on Windows Phone.

The stupid part is Windows 8 is going to implement a similarly retarded scheme for Metro apps. When they're not in the foreground they're suspended. So tough luck if you were using a video conferencing or VOIP app or a multiplayer game and you want to check an email in the middle of it. Because if you do then you'll probably terminate your session when you step away from it. Multitasking is so yesterday.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771171)

Because if you do then you'll probably terminate your session when you step away from it.

Half my games already crash if I alt-tab out of them, Microsoft probably figured nobody would miss the other half.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771295)

Try playing Minecraft with out being able to alt-tab out.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771907)

You should consider playing games that aren't ancient then. Vast majority of windows games produced in last 5-7 years can handle alt-tab just fine. Many of the games released in last couple of years even offer "borderless full screen window mode" where you can use the game as if it was just another application, which is really handy in multiple display environment. I play SC2 like that for example.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771901)

Windows Phone 7.5 suspends apps when they leave the foreground. The only background activity that an app may do are periodic background agents which run 30 minutes apart and some streaming functionality through the multimedia framework. If your app falls outside that model (as Skype does) then tough shit you're going to have to gimp it to make it work on Windows Phone.

The stupid part is Windows 8 is going to implement a similarly retarded scheme for Metro apps. When they're not in the foreground they're suspended. So tough luck if you were using a video conferencing or VOIP app or a multiplayer game and you want to check an email in the middle of it. Because if you do then you'll probably terminate your session when you step away from it. Multitasking is so yesterday.

Retarded scheme? Haven't we learned anything from the system trays and toolbars of typical users? From Real Player agent, Quicktime agent and everything constantly running in the background? Now imagine all of those, running on a tablet or phone with a limited battery and with limited RAM. can you imagine the battery life and memory bloat? It has been proved that the apps abuse the privilege that they're granted and it's too much of a chore for non-power users to babysit them so they don't slow down the machine or eat up battery in an hour.

Also, Windows 8 desktop won't have such limitations, so you can do all what you want. Not to mention that Windows 8 Metro supports two side-by-side applications unlike iPad and Android tablets, which you have conveniently failed to mention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYMCuBbt4E [youtube.com]

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772107)

I'm not talking about the desktop, I'm talking about Metro apps and not having a way for a metro app to run in the background AT ALL is just wrong. Perhaps it should be the default behaviour in the absence of the app stating a preference but there should be a preference for apps that need it.

Imagine talking to someone on Skype and you want to send them an attachment so you jump to the email app and... oh shit call terminated. Or maybe you want to use VOIP for some smacktalk while playing someone at chess. Except you can't. That is just retarded behaviour.

If Android can allow multitasking and the Playbook can allow multitasking and iOS can enable multitasking then there is no excuse that Windows (Phone) cannot. Especially when we consider tablet and desktop devices where any excuses about memory consumption or CPU fly out of the window.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (4, Informative)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772225)

Just as in iOS, Metro apps can do background tasks via specific APIs to support it (such as music playback). Apps have to be specifically written to support background execution/behaviors, and there are certainly limits on what can be done (but, for instance, downloads can complete, music can play back, etc). By default, Metro apps are suspended when they're no longer foreground... just like iOS.

Android has battery issues from multitasking apps. iOS and WP7 attempt to mitigate the battery problems and provide much longer battery life by limiting background processing to only those things that absolutely need it, and then manaing those things in an intelligent, energy-conserving way.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39772431)

In iOS, VoIP applications need to run on TCP, otherwise they will not work when in background. Apple doesn't allow UDP background tasks.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772581)

The "battery issues" thing is a myth. To make an app run in the background in Android you must write a service or a broadcast receiver. If you don't write a service or receiver (and most apps are simple activities) then the app's process is paused and sits in memory until such time as it comes back to the foreground or is cleaned up by the system. There is also a lifecycle for apps so they can save state or whatnot as they pass into suspended state. If an app has a service then it's implicit that it needs it for a reason, e.g. streaming music, running IM or whatever.

And if for whatever reason an app uses too much power, do you know what happens? It gets uninstalled and the store ratings attracts a lot of downratings. It's a self correcting issue.

And in my experience with a Lumia 800 the restrictions in Windows Phone do not result in better battery life. Far from it, the performance has been atrocious for most of the phone's life and has only improved recently with a firmware update. Even in its improved performance state it's merely comparable to other smart phones.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39770835)

I don't understand either why it's so hard to integrate to phone operations.

It worked like a charm on nokia N900, directly integrated into everything, no need to install anything or start separate apps.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771471)

You know, I was going to post a similar thing about the N9. This is a fully-meh non story. M$ catches up to yesterday's tech, film at 1.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39770873)

Is it just me, or does everything about Windows Phone an effort to slavishly copy what Apple was doing ~5 years ago, the good and especially the bad? Even if one supposes that Apple's products are the be-all/end-all of the phone world, and there's no significant market chunk that's underserved by them and could be more easily taken by differentiating your product than cloning, surely you could learn from the past several revisions, and try to copy what they're doing now?

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771025)

That's more android, they started by basically cloning the iphone but then went with more diverse handsets and more open store. So they're both trying to re-envision windows 3.1 in the phone space. And they sort of orbit around each other with some new features, and some unique features but mostly just copying each other

Microsoft is trying a completely different tactic with a completely different style (live tiles aren't really like anything else, except maybe media centre editions of windows), and they're aiming to unify with the desktop (windows phone 8), which sounds like it could be a good idea, but it might be an unmitigated disaster with ARM-Intel compatibility issues trashing the whole thing. WP7.5 is, you're right, lagging behind somewhat on some features compared to droids and iphones, but I suspect some of that is intentionally not bothering with features that will be in WP8. I'm not suggesting that's a good plan, it just seems like what they're doing.

The one thing MS should be copying from Apple is the software update model. Fuck the carriers it's available and we don't care what they have to say about it. Unfortunately they didn't do that. The 99 dollar a year developer licence to unlock your phone (or be a developer) sort of makes sense, but it charges you money for what android gives away for free. Seems kinda dumb on MS's part.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

asserted (818761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771385)

> That's more android, they started by basically cloning the iphone but then went with more diverse handsets and more open store.

you do realize that Android development started in 2005 and was nearing final stages(*) when iPhone debuted in 2007, don't you?
that "more diverse handsets and more open store" was there since the platform's inception, right?
that more open everything, including the source, was the whole freaking point, the major selling point, the single reason it got adopted so widely?

(*) the beta SDK was released on 5 Nov. yes, v1.0 and the first device came a year later, but the changes between beta and 1.0 were relatively minor.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771771)

you do realize that Android development started in 2005 and was nearing final stages(*) when iPhone debuted in 2007, don't you?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say by comparing when development started on one platform to when another platform was released. Are you trying to say that Android development started before iPhone development started? Or that developing android took longer than iPhone development? Sorry, what was your point?

that more open everything, including the source, was the whole freaking point, the major selling point, the single reason it got adopted so widely?

Silly me, I thought it was Android being superior to the custom crap phone makers were trying to push out, and it was FREE were the reasons it got so adopted so widely. I don't think open had much of anything to do with it, and it definitely wasn't a major selling point to the masses. Sure, maybe .8% of those who bought it cared, but statistically insignificant.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

asserted (818761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772135)

i'm saying that before iPhone came out there was nothing to copy, and when it did, Android's design process was already in the final stages.

i'm not arguing it matters to consumers, but i'm pretty sure that "open source under permissive licence" was (and is) a major factor for the device makers. i'm pretty sure that Google had much easier time putting together the OHA when they said "we'll give you the platform, the source and the right to do anything you want with it". full year before any hardware was due to come out they already had HTC, Samsung and Motorola as well as Sprint and T-Mobile lined up and publicly committed to the platform. i haven't heard any reports of money changing hands (i.e. Google bribing device manufacturers). now contrast that with Microsoft's WP7, for which i cannot help but notice complete lack of manufacturer enthusiasm - it's basically Microsoft twisting their arms with patent suits, bribing or installing their man at the head and all but taking over (see Nokia). so yeah, it does matter. it matters a lot, in fact.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773403)

As for android being in the final stages, well, I guess that would be valid if you assume that the iPhone was developed on Mars and nothing was leaked. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Google could have had advance knowledge of the iPhone before it was released, either through tech demos, partners, ex-employees, etc. Not to mention that the a year is a very long time to fit features in, especially the finishing touches that quite often are what is considered to have been copied.

As for the rest of your post, nothing in there points to android being open as a factor. Free, however is, and even the later part of your post eludes to it through Microsoft forcing device manufacturers to pay for their use of android through it's infringing patents. If being "open" was such a driving force for manufacturers, the fact that they now have to pay $15 per handset for android shouldn't make a difference, but of course, it does. If WP7 becomes less expensive than android, but closed, and the features are on parity, then manufacturers will switch so they can make a larger profit. This is exactly what Microsoft, Apple, and the market analysts that are far more knowledgeable on this topic than you are I are saying. Barring anything that actually points to "open" being more than an insignificant driving force, I'll agree with them.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39774783)

Google could have had advance knowledge of the iPhone before it was released, either through tech demos, partners, ex-employees, etc.

A Mr. Eric Schmidt happened to be on the board of directors of Apple until August 3, 2009, almost a year after Android 1.0 was released. Conflict of interest much?

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39772113)

No, it's not Android at all. Android started with Apps from any source, having more-or-less full access. iOS started with no apps, version 2 got apps with limited access (no running in background except for Apple's preloaded stuff), only later versions finally allowed apps that really needed a background service to have one. Windows Phone started with the exact same multitasking restrictions as iPhone 2 -- and I bet in a year or so, a background service API will be released.

And the semi-closed, pay us a fee to self-sign apps and run them on your own device, SDK is the same between Windows Phone and iOS, different from Android. Similarly, Windows Phone started without copy-paste, despite iOS having once lacked it (to great scorn), but now having it (to much rejoicing). And there's been one or two other points of similarity I'd noticed, that the iPhone once had, but already moved beyond, but I'm not thinking of them right now.

I get why Apple had to move fast to secure the market, even if it meant a couple feature-incomplete versions: Nokia was moving in the consumer-friendly touchscreen direction (N800, etc.), Android was already started, and others wouldn't be far behind, so if it took them a year to get more features running perfectly, that niche could have been partly-occupied rather than completely vacant. But Microsoft's going up against a full marketplace either way (and as you say, hoping to win by desktop/tablet/phone unification), so I don't see what it costs them to delay a bit and get it right, rather than releasing a feature-lacking version that leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth and may condemn the whole project.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771863)

Heh. The best part is that Apple has historically been behind in terms of features.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771881)

You realize that Apple copied Windows Phone in allowing access to the camera directly from the lock-screen in iOS5, right?

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770995)

So, is this a fault of Microsoft's Skype port? Or a limitation of Windows Phone? Like perhaps its not a multitasking O/S.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771095)

fault of microsoft not dealing skype(which they're going to run soon enough anyways) prioritized access and special privileges. windows phone just happens to suck for making apps that extend the phone with voip etc.

do you know who really loves that though? couple of choice carriers.

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771669)

do you know who really loves that though? couple of choice carriers.

... so carriers will start pushing it. Users will still lap it up, and only notice too late that the Skype on their new phone is not actually usage.

Quite cunning!

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771443)

The platform doesn't have the restriction. Tango (the app) does it just fine.

http://www.tango.me/

The Skype app is just poorly implemented when it comes to running in the background

Re:Finally arrives? No, not really... still broken (2)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772967)

Even the product the Lumia 900 replaced, the N9 can receive calls in the background (Meego OS)

Purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39770803)

Is the purpose of Skype's existence to save money on international calls? Is there any other reason to use it that I'm missing?

Re:Purpose? (3, Insightful)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770831)

Video chat is a nice feature. Prior to using iPhones, I used Skype to connect my kids with their distant grandparents. Keeps me from having to travel to the Ozarks. (Worth every penny).

Re:Purpose? (1, Informative)

shortscruffydave (638529) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771009)

Video chat is indeed a useful feature....unless you have a Nokia Lumia Windows phone, which lacks a front-facing camera

Re:Purpose? (2)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771089)

Video chat is indeed a useful feature....unless you have a Nokia Lumia Windows phone, which lacks a front-facing camera

According to Wikipedia, the Lumia 900 has one: 1 Megapixel, 1280x720 pixels.

Re:Purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771379)

All Windows Phones released since WP 7.5 "Mango" (summer 2011) have dual cameras.

Re:Purpose? (1)

antiseptic_poetry (1022107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773901)

Incorrect - Nokia Lumia 800 and 710 both don't have a FFC.

Re:Purpose? (1)

shortscruffydave (638529) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772121)

I stand corrected....shows you how much attention I've been paying to WinPhone (I wonder why that is)

Re:Purpose? (1)

Megor1 (621918) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773789)

I stand corrected....shows you how much attention I've been paying to WinPhone (I wonder why that is)

So if you know nothing about a topic why are you posting made up information?

Re:Purpose? (1)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770899)

International calls, group chat, though its also frequently used in place of TeamSpeak, Mumble, and Ventrilo for smaller gaming groups. Which of course also makes that an important way to get in contact with your peers.

Its userbase is quite diverse, as such.

Re:Purpose? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770935)

If you make a lot of domestic calls it is useful, too, since obviously it doesn't use up your minutes.

Speaking as a non-Skype user here, but I have a few family members that use Skype as their primary means of communication. I honestly have very few actual voice conversations on my phone these days at all...pretty much everything is SMS, IM, or Email.

Re:Purpose? (1)

ulski (1173329) | more than 2 years ago | (#39774125)

an increasing number airports/hotels etc. offers "free" wifi as part of the ticket or hotel room. This means that when you are traveling, you could call home for free using Skype or other voip software using your wifi enabled smart phone/laptop/tablet.

Now... how about my Playbook? (3, Insightful)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770805)

It's a deal breaker for a lot potential customers and current ones. I'll be looking at the google tablet very hard when it shows up this summer.

Oh good (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770809)

I was worried for a minute that the Windows Phone owner wouldn't be able to make calls with his smartphone. Crisis averted!

Why VoIP on a smartphone (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771977)

VoIP on a smartphone is a way to work around carriers' tendency to overcharge for international calls, long calls, and calls made from home or other places with Wi-Fi. Unlimited-everything plans are still priced as a luxury.

Re:Oh good (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772037)

you used smart and windows in the same sentence?

Still behind iOS and Android (4, Informative)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770945)

The app still doesn't do basic stuff that the Skype app on Android does fine, like being able to receive calls when the app is not active. From what I read, this is a limitation of the platform. I really don't understand the glowing reviews for the Lumia 900 and the relentless praise for Windows Phone 7, in glowing reviews like this one: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/15/nokia-lumia-900-review-this-ones-a-no-brainer/ [techcrunch.com]

It seems people can't stop making excuses for WP7, just because it's different to iOS and Android. It doesn't support dual core processors and resolutions higher than 800x480, and now it looks like no current phone will get an upgrade to Windows Phone 8, which is even worse than Android fragmentation issues. And it sounds like a repeat the HTC HD2 story, the HD2 was never upgraded to Windows 7 despite having the hardware to support it. It comes with a childish and uncustomizable homescreen. The applications screen consists of one long scrolling list that becomes a pain once you have a few apps installed. It was clever when it came out, but as Joshua Topolsky said for WP7 it's time we stopped giving it a pass.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39770993)

For many a phone is a phone, not a computer. And as a phone and more standard communicator, WP7 is exemplary.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771225)

Then just get a feature phone.

A smartphone is a computer first, phone distant third maybe.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771897)

Why the fuck does it cost like a computer, then? You can get "a phone and more standard communicator" a lot cheaper, WP7 phones cost just a bit less than current gen iPhone/top Android set and in the same range as average grade Androids and previous gen iPhones.

WinPhone fans are like the last decade Apple fans - "It's a bit too expensive for its specs, but it's worth it", "You're chasing all the shiny features and tweaks, while we, connoiseurs, simply choose the device that Just Works", ...

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (1, Informative)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772277)

How are WP7 phones "too expensive"? On contract, there somewhere between free and $99... singnificantly cheaper than most Android and all iOS phones on average.

And WP7 has many features the other's lack, helping to make up for some of the features it lacks that others have. It's a trade-off, and individuals can decide what set of functionality is really important to them.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39772387)

Obviously, the functionality important to dell623 is more cores, higher resolution, and background tasks. Who care whether the interface isn't smooth and the battery lasts four hours, my phone is quad core! User experience only matters to chumps and fanboys.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39773127)

How are WP7 phones "singnificantly cheaper"? Obviously, you're comparing contract vs unlocked, because iPhones on contract is somewhere between free and $99, and Android on contract is somewhere between free and $99.

So, it costs as any modern smartphone, but the dude I responded to claimed that missing basic smartphone features don't matter, because "For many a phone is a phone, not a computer. And as a phone and more standard communicator, WP7 is exemplary."

Just a phone and more standard communicator costs between free and $99 _without_ overpriced data contract shoved upon

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771711)

The app still doesn't do basic stuff that the Skype app on Android does fine, like being able to receive calls when the app is not active. From what I read, this is a limitation of the platform. I really don't understand the glowing reviews for the Lumia 900 and the relentless praise for Windows Phone 7, in glowing reviews like this one: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/15/nokia-lumia-900-review-this-ones-a-no-brainer/ [techcrunch.com]

It seems people can't stop making excuses for WP7, just because it's different to iOS and Android. It doesn't support dual core processors and resolutions higher than 800x480, and now it looks like no current phone will get an upgrade to Windows Phone 8, which is even worse than Android fragmentation issues. And it sounds like a repeat the HTC HD2 story, the HD2 was never upgraded to Windows 7 despite having the hardware to support it. It comes with a childish and uncustomizable homescreen. The applications screen consists of one long scrolling list that becomes a pain once you have a few apps installed. It was clever when it came out, but as Joshua Topolsky said for WP7 it's time we stopped giving it a pass.

It is not a technical limitation of the platform but a rather deliberate one that was put in place so that the battery does not run down because of background tasks.
See Android with it's background services (some that are installed by carriers and that cannot even be uninstalled) and battery life problems. Anyway, this (and other limitations you listed) should be gone in WP8.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771829)

... And lack of wheels on MSMobile is a fuel saving feature.

Who the fuck thought that lack of background listener is a good idea for IM and VoIP application? I thought there was some kind of push notifications API in WP7 for apps like that.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771981)

WP7 has push notifications. Skype hasn't implemented them on the backend, yet.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (1)

antiseptic_poetry (1022107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39774083)

WP7 push notifications (toasts) are fairly useless, as there's no notification cache. When you receive one, your phone vibrates and it appears on the screen for 15 seconds..and then disappears, gone forever. If you missed it, too bad, you'll never know about it.

On the other hand, a toast push message can open an app when clicked by the user, so could be used as a mechanism for initiating an incoming Skype call.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (3, Insightful)

Windowser (191974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773103)

Anyway, this (and other limitations you listed) should be gone in WP8.

Like every problem in every Windows version, it should be gone in the next version.
Keep the faith my friend, some day, Microsoft will get something out the door that won't suck. And I guess it will be a vacuum.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39774233)

Anyway, this (and other limitations you listed) should be gone in WP8.

Like every problem in every Windows version, it should be gone in the next version.
Keep the faith my friend, some day, Microsoft will get something out the door that won't suck. And I guess it will be a vacuum.

So... unlike Linux then, where problems don't get fixed in the next version and it continues to suck(or get worse, like the new KDE, Gnome and Unity) ?

At least MS fixed many of the critical issues in Vista with Windows 7.

Re:Still behind iOS and Android (2)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773291)

This is one limitation of the background tasks. It's not a hurdle that they cannot overcome, and it's not like they will not overcome it considering that Skype is their subsidiary now.

Unlike your Android phone (leap of faith there), Windows Phones do not yet need a dual core processor, nor do I expect it suddenly to this Fall even though it is expected to have them at that point. The applications run just fine on a single core, as does pretty much everything on iOS (oh no, the iPhone 4 has a single core! Only the iPhone 4S has a dual core). As for the screen resolution, I have yet to see a real problem with 800x480 other than marketing, although I fully expect higher resolutions to appear with WP8.

The HTC HD2 would have provided instant fragmentation to the WP7 platform. It had different hardware buttons, which would have mitigated any idea of button standards instantly, and also its memory capacity actually varied by carrier. Finally, the WP8 upgrade is currently only a rumor spawned by people that are frequently wrong about the platform (most recently Paul Thurott).

Now, as a Windows Phone owner, I do agree that it will be terrible if they were to drop support for all WP devices. I would absolutely leave the platform for the same reason that I will not go to Android anytime soon: I am not going to pay for a 2 year contract for a phone that loses support before the contract ends, which has so far happened to every non-Nexus Android. Microsoft claimed that they were not going to play that same game, and I have to give them the benefit of the doubt because they have made good on their word so far (only the carriers have blocked updates, not Microsoft, and Microsoft has them freely available so that I can download the diffs and force them without having to root my phone or otherwise void my warranty). It's on them whether or not I lose faith in the platform, and take my fanboy-crush to a different platform (most likely iOS); I doubt I am alone. Fortunately, I think it would crush Nokia to lose support for the phones that they have just released, so there is very little chance that this rumor is even true.

Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770961)

Windows Phone sucks for this sort of app. Apps are suspended when they are in the background so tough luck if you want to receive calls with Skype because you can't. You would have to leave it open all the time with no screen lock or you won't be receiving any calls.

Microsoft would have to bless the app or add some background service with special privileges that listens for inbound calls. Or better yet they'd fix the WP architecture so any app can run in the background even if has to request a special permission to do it.

The current situation stinks and demonstrates again why Android is a better phone OS. In Android you can install any VOIP app and run it in the background, better yet some apps such as Viber can actually become the default activity for making / receiving calls so they can merge their functionality in with the standard phone features.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771403)

This is true, but it's naive to think that Microsoft will not expand on their background tasks to allow such behavior (probably not the Viber part though, as I imagine that does not exactly excite the carriers).

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771821)

This appears to be a limitation of the WP7 multitasking model. MS may change it in the a future update. Does anyone know that the plans are for the next version (not update) for Windows phone OS? I've heard rumors that Win 8 will be used instead of WP8. That would frought with unknowns including if present apps will work in Win8.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772263)

Here is are some recent [msdn.com] blogs [msdn.com] about Windows 8 and how it will suspend Metro apps. Right at the top of the second it says:

An important attribute of this app model is that apps are suspended when they are no longer visible to the user. Suspending Metro style apps in the background is a good thing, as it conserves CPU for other apps and ensures that background apps don’t cause activity that can consume resources, thereby improving the battery life and increasing responsiveness.

I have to wonder what they were smoking when they came up with this restriction. It's one thing to say the default behaviour is to suspend an app but apps may request an override and the user may restrict further. But to deny it completely is utterly wrongheaded and contrary to the way people use tablets and PCs. I can't think of a rational reason to lock down the UI like this other than some underlying brokenness in the implementation which is deemed too high risk to fix or expose to the user.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772327)

You misunderstand or misapprehend. There DO exist APIs to perform background tasks as necessary (such as completing a download even though the user switched away, or continuing music playback). It IS the case that the DEFAULT behavior is to suspend. It is ALSO the case that apps may request, via specific APIs, some specific background functionality.

This is really little different from iOS.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772403)

I know there are background agents and some other things but they do not fit all apps which means I am screwed. It's not hard to imagine examples as I did.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773631)

You misunderstand or misapprehend. There DO exist APIs to perform background tasks as necessary (such as completing a download even though the user switched away, or continuing music playback). It IS the case that the DEFAULT behavior is to suspend. It is ALSO the case that apps may request, via specific APIs, some specific background functionality.

This is really little different from iOS.

ah that's the impression only until you try to implement something with them. here, take a look: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh202942(v=vs.92).aspx [microsoft.com]

oh and no xna.* from bg tasks(yes there's a pretty common use case why you would want that..).

sure, there's also a bunch of api's you could use but if you use them you can't publish to market.

it's really different from iOS and totally different from android and just shit way of doing compared to symbian.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772305)

WP8 will run all WP7 apps. That is not an unknown.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773673)

So it will be WP8 on the next phones instead of Windows RT. So WP7 apps won't run on Windows RT?

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39774617)

There are no details on what WP8 will support beyond the statement that it will run all existing WP7 apps.

Whether it's possible to write apps that would run across both WP8 and Win8/WinRT (presumably at least a recompile woudl be required) is not currently public knowledge, one way or the other. I'm not even going to speculate.

WP8 and Windows 8 (and WinRT) share a common OS Core... again, that has been publicly stated. What is layered on top is not public knowledge yet.

I seriously doubt (but again, just my opinion) that WP8 and WinRT will be in feature/API parity. I'm guessing that WinRT is what it is, and WP8 will be a refinement and enhancement of WP7, and that the common OS core will be a benefit mostly to Microsoft, and most users won't even notice.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39774703)

One of the main reasons I think that Apple was able to get consumers to buy iPads was that iPhone/iPod Touch apps would work on an iPad. The size wasn't optimized for the iPad screen but it was a reasonable compromise that ensured users that there were plenty of apps. The developer could create an iPad optimized app if they wanted. The problem facing MS for both WP7 and Windows RT will be a lack of apps. WP7 is catching up but if those apps cannot run on Windows RT, users are back to square one.

Re:Too bad if you actually want to receive calls (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | more than 2 years ago | (#39774261)

I don't really get what the big deal is. Why would you want to continually run a background process like that? Wouldn't a better solution be to suspend the process, then wake it up if it receives a push notification? This way, the only process that needs to continually run is some kind of centralized message dispatcher, rather than leaving your battery life to the whims of every app you install on the device. At least that is how I would go about implementing this kind of a system...

Won't support low end Tango devices (2)

suraj.sun (1348507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39770967)

Even though it's owned by Microsoft, Skype won't support low end Windows Phone Tango devices as it “requires a minimum of 512MB of memory to install and use Skype” [skype.com] , and doesn't yet have support for receiving calls in the background -- if the app isn't running [wmpoweruser.com] .

Re:Won't support low end Tango devices (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771423)

It's like they're trying to skip the "extend" part and just extinguish their new subsidiary Skype forever.

Re:Won't support low end Tango devices (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773663)

It's like they're trying to skip the "extend" part and just extinguish their new subsidiary Skype forever.

well at&t would like that.. and telia-sonera...
though it's not like skype is the only name in the voip town, it just happens to be the most popular.

Re:Won't support low end Tango devices (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39773421)

That legitimately surprises me. I wonder if it actually needs the memory, or if it is an oversight on their listing (as it's listed as a Known Issue)?

It mostly surprises me because the Tango-based phones are destined for China and India where a lot of people use Skype. Being able to sell it as the go-to phone for Skype would have been a smart move on their part, but Microsoft has never been known to have good marketing. Hopefully whomever is to blame wakes up and notices.

fri5t stop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771191)

which gathers again. There 4re as one of the is perhaps

frist istop. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39771319)

but it's noGt a Lite is straining achieve any of the Part+s of you are standpoint, I don't

Laziness (1)

eXonyte (842640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39771767)

Many are complaining that the Skype app's lack of receiving calls when inactive is a Windows Phone limitation. While this is true, the Tango Video Calling app uses WP's Push Notifications to work around this quite well in my experience. Skype could have easily done the same thing as a workaround until a real VoIP background agent API is introduced.

Look like MS is slowly coming back (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39772009)

They have a decent phone platform
They have Skype
They are more internet / html friendly than ever
And they might even support C++ on Windows Mobile in the near future

I think they have got it finally :)

When is skype coming for blackberry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39772919)

The only skype for blackberry is on Verizon phones:

http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/get-skype/on-your-mobile/skype-mobile/blackberry/ [skype.com]

Now, I can understand that Verizon gave skype a bunch of cash to make skype an exclusive among US carriers, but what about the rest of us non-USians?

(and yes, if you extract the skype app from a Verizon blackberry then transfer it to a non-Verizon blackberry, it won't work)

Hidden API usage? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39773817)

Because WP is locked down so much that we now just skip over it in favour of Android for field/embedded app development.

WP has NO access to Bluetooth, NO side loading, NO local database persistent storage etc etc, it is marketplace loading, XNA/Silverlight with Isolated storage.

WP has no place outside of Balmers pocket.

Can anybody profile the API usage of skype to see they are using only public API's? If not then there is another anti-trust suit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>