
Skype Hits 40 Million Simultaneous Users - danyork
http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2012/04/skype-hits-40-million-simultaneous-users.html
======
ef4
I'm surprised to see the complaints about call quality. In recent years I've
found the call quality to be really good. It helps if you have a dedicated
headset.

I'd much rather criticize their UI design. The latest OSX client is an
abomination.

~~~
lucianof
I switched from Windows to OS X a couple months ago. Everything was bright and
shiny until I installed the Skype client. I could literally not believe that
this is the same Software I used to love on Windows - there is so much wrong
with it (constantly popping up Dial Pad that I never use, inability to resize
the Name column, to just name a few). Over time I got used to the annoyances,
but it it still one of the worst UIs I've ever seen. Does anybody have an idea
how this could happen?

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
The _"craigslist effect"_. It's when a product or service with shitty design
and severe flaws is the only one that does what it does and starts growing in
popularity due to it's monopoly and it's owners think "hey we must be doing
something right so lets not change or improve it because we don't have to".
A.K.A. " _What happens when you don't have competition._ "

~~~
lucianof
But what's so surprising is that I don't remember the Windows client to be
nearly as bad as the one for Mac. I guess they are made by two completely
different teams with no coordination on UI issues.

~~~
danyork
The Mac Skype client was actually quite excellent, too, up through version
2.8. Then Skype jumped the version number to 5.0 and came out with the UI mess
that they did. About a year ago I wrote about the issues I had with the 5.x
client... and I _still_ have the issue with the lack of multiple windows:

[http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2011/04/my-3-main-
issues-...](http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2011/04/my-3-main-issues-with-
skype-5x-for-the-mac-and-jim-courtney-summarizes-the-skype-for-
mac-5-saga.html)

------
orbitingpluto
Maybe they could work on the quality of the service now!

One of my largest pet peeves is that Skype quality is so poor that DTMF tones
can't travel across intact. If you're using Skype and trying to enter an
extension, good luck. This morning I tried to use Skype to access my voice
mail without success.

Customer support is also horrible. The standard response is that it is the
customer's fault. Audio quality on Skype seems to be directly proportional to
how old the device is.

Nokia Maemo tablet? Great! Nokia N95, not so great. Windows, Android, Linux,
Apple? Nuh uh.

~~~
crazygringo
Does anyone know the technical reason for DTMF tones having difficulty?

Because the quality of a Skype call, for me, is so much higher than a cell
phone or landline, why do the tones have a problem? Is it something about the
codec?

~~~
DanBC
([https://support.skype.com/en-us/faq/FA10292/Does-Skype-
Conne...](https://support.skype.com/en-us/faq/FA10292/Does-Skype-Connect-
support-DTMF-signaling))

(<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2833/>)

(<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4733/>)

(<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4734/>)

([https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-
implementors/200...](https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-
implementors/2007-June/016970.html))

> _GK >> You are right that with in-band DTMF, you need to perform tone
> detection at RTP level which isn't exactly an ideal scenario._

(<http://www.voipmechanic.com/dtmf-issues.htm>)

> _In some VoIP routes a switch may be configured to detect in-band DTMF which
> is sent by the VoIP ATA, but then switches to an out of band RFC2833 DTMF
> required for an upstream provider. This upstream carrier then terminates the
> call to the PSTN, possibly to a voice mail system, which will require
> regeneration of the audible inband DTMF tones. The switch has to detect and
> remove the tone sent by the ATA from the audio stream because the upstream
> provider specified RFC2833 DTMF. At times the switch can't always completely
> remove the in-band DTMF tone which is a problem, because by the time it has
> detected the DTMF tone, it has already passed a short amount of it. This
> small amount of in-band tone along with the RFC2833 tone sent are both
> received by the far end voice mail system which will then register an error
> (problem), possibly an invalid mailbox or invalid password._

------
Karunamon
I never seem to have these quality issues that people are complaining about
elsewhere in this thread. About the only thing I can give them flack for is
the horrible, _horrible_ UI design.

~~~
baby
Are you talking about the windows or OSX one? They're both so different.

~~~
Karunamon
Both of them are pretty painful, albeit in different ways. OSX Skype could
take a cue from Adium, Windows Skype could take a cue from ICQ, and _BOTH_
could take a cue from Linux Skype.

~~~
technomancy
Linux Skype, which makes you open a new window for every chat you have? Linux
Skype which won't notify you of incoming calls if you're already on a call?
That Linux Skype?

~~~
Karunamon
I was talking more about the minimalist UI and less about janky behavior. The
Windows (and to a lesser extent, OS X) versions seem to have taken their
designs from the worst parts of MSN Messenger and AIM.

And call me crazy, but I prefer my chats in separate windows.

------
mirkules
While I congratulate Skype on reaching 40M simultaneous users, I am somewhat
disappointed that there was no mention of how the 40M people can stay online
without melting Skype's servers. Some architectural insight would have been
nice from an article posted on the front page of HN...

~~~
danyork
Skype uses a peer-to-peer network for the majority of the connections and
really only uses servers for authentication and for gateways to other
services/networks (such as the regular phone network).

A couple of years ago I wrote a brief description of the technology underlying
Skype:

[http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2010/11/a-brief-primer-
on...](http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2010/11/a-brief-primer-on-the-tech-
behind-skype-p2psip-and-p2p-networks.html)

(I have no connection to Skype myself, but have worked in the VoIP industry
for 10 years and have been writing about Skype for a good portion of that
time.)

~~~
mirkules
Cool, thanks for the link. If I understood correctly from your article,
supernodes are basically Skype clients that act as distributed servers used
for discovery of other clients.

But I imagine authentication has to happen against a Skype server, and the
clients would have to constantly communicate with that server to stay online,
to get the current balance, etc... That's 40M requests at any given time.
Since it's semi-distributed, and you have to pay for the service (to call a
landline or internationally, for example), how does this fit into the
distributed model and how do they keep track of everyone?

------
Alex3917
Which means there were probably 100 million users attempting to use Skype
simultaneously. Skype works maybe 50% of the time I try to use it at best.

------
K2h
Maybe I'll finally have to see if I can do something interesting with skype.

[http://search.cpan.org/~mncoppola/Win32-Skype-0.01/lib/Win32...](http://search.cpan.org/~mncoppola/Win32-Skype-0.01/lib/Win32/Skype.pm)

~~~
technomancy
I wrote a script that lets you initiate and respond to calls using only the
keyboard, which made my Skype usage bearable when I still had to use it:
<https://raw.github.com/technomancy/dotfiles/master/bin/skyyy>

------
majorlazer
Just to clear things up, that's 40M people logged into a Skype client, not
simultaneously video chatting.

------
sp332
That sounds really high? That's more than 10% of the population of the USA,
all using Skype at once.

~~~
nfriedly
That's the number of people who have skype running on their computers, not the
number who are on a call. Skype is fairly common, automatically starts when
the computer starts, and doesn't actually close when you click the "x". So I
think that number is believable for total users online worldwide.

~~~
skeletonjelly
Not to mention smartphones.

------
ww520
Are there rooms for an alternative?

~~~
rbanffy
Of course there is. I don't think it will happen, however. Google Plus already
demonstrates rich in-browser video teleconferencing. I think that's the way to
go.

It should be relatively easy to build a Google hangout client with nothing but
HTML and a WebKit+plugins engine.

~~~
viandante
Could you be more specific on why this will not happen? As you say, in-web
calls should be possible, why people don't compete against skype with decent
web apps?

~~~
rbanffy
I think a new stand-alone application has zero chance of successfully taking
on Skype head to head. A web app, possibly embedded in a social setting, has a
much better chance of success, if well executed.

------
ChrisNorstrom
I think Microsoft got a good deal when they bought skype.

Looking at Skype (despite it's flaws) it's success was unavoidable. The same
way people want an all-in-one device that does everything (like smart phones)
over multiple separate solutions (camera, mp3 player, phone, pda), people seem
to want one IM client for calling, texting, IMing, voice chat & video
chatting. I don't think any other client provides everything wrapped up so
well. Yes the UI is horrendous and tedious but its services are well offered
and cheap. And with ever increasing globalization those services are vital.

It's just too bad that Microsoft introduced a back door to spy on skype calls.
I now trust it about as much as I trust Google Voice + Google Talk.

~~~
replax
Please back the backdoor claim up, it's the first time I've read that and it
does not really make sense (to me), as there would be no reason to do so...

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9218002/Microsoft_see...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9218002/Microsoft_seeks_patent_for_spy_tech_for_Skype)

Correction: Not a back door, but a eavesdropping technology.

