
Skype group video calling becomes free - Siyfion
http://blogs.skype.com/2014/04/28/skype-loves-bringing-groups-together-with-free-group-video-calling/
======
rdl
I don't understand why Microsoft took so long to do this. If they had been
faster after Google Hangouts, it never would have gained a beachhead. Xbox One
could easily find a secondary market as a conference room device; a Microsoft
version of Airplay and Chromecast (ideally open to Mac and general web as
well) would take more engineering, but would have been awesome too.

~~~
stoev
"I don't understand why Microsoft took so long to do this."

Skype had free video group calls long before Google Hangouts even existed. If
I remember correctly, they forced their users to pay for it a few months or a
year after Google Hangouts launched, which was a really stupid move which
surely helped Google's product a lot.

~~~
simonk
Group video was only free for a very limited time on the beta only on the
Windows application. It became a paid product over a year before Google
Hangouts launched.

------
shmerl
I hope open protocols will catch up already. XMPP/Jingle has user side
multiplexing for a while (MUJI), but it requires decent bandwidth. It's a
deferred XEP for some reason though. Also, most clients lack support for it.
Server side multiplexing wasn't standardized for some reason, so XMPP servers
didn't come up with anything common so far.

Skype remains just another proprietary walled garden communication network
which in addition can't be trusted. It should be avoided.

~~~
rz2k
I think it is amazing how little strategy and disruption there seems to be in
the industry.

My dad is mostly retired, he rents out his office, but his secretary still
comes into the office one afternoon a week. I didn't want to stress her out by
asking her to learn new technology, but the phone was used only an hour or two
a month. I ported the same number he'd had for a few decades to Google Voice,
and attached an ObiHai box so that she can use a regular phone, rather than
needing to understand why messages are in Google Voice but outgoing calls are
placed using Google Chat, or use a special earpiece plugged into the computer.

Anyway, over the two years that it worked it saved a couple thousand dollars
that would have been spent to use the phone for about 30 hours. Since Google
Voice will no longer be compatible with ObiHai devices this month (moving away
from XMPP), I ported the number to Anveo, which is no longer free, but still
only $40/year.

Both Microsoft and Google should offer small businesses packaged services
where you bring your own internet service, then buy telephone plus email using
your own domain name from them for a flat fee. Something like $200-400/year
for 1-3 users would find an enormous market. Afterwards, they could sell
office suites, billing/accounting software, scheduling software as add-ons.

Right now it is needlessly complicated for people who have minimal
communication needs, and don't care about technology, to avoid huge costs.
It's kind of absurd to consider how little service someone like a barber or a
shop owner gets after paying fees that make up a significant part of their
operating costs.

~~~
tanzam75
> _Both Microsoft and Google should offer small businesses packaged services
> where you bring your own internet service, then buy telephone plus email
> using your own domain name from them for a flat fee._

Microsoft is focusing on the enterprise, because that's where the money is.
For example, CERN is using Microsoft Lync as an IP PBX, using the Polycom
CX300. It looks like a desk telephone and works like a desk telephone. It can
even retrieve voicemail. But it plugs in to a USB port and uses Lync for
calling. [https://espace.cern.ch/mmmservices-
help/UnifiedCommunication...](https://espace.cern.ch/mmmservices-
help/UnifiedCommunication/Lync/Pages/Overview.aspx)

It's a lot simpler to sell to CERN and pick up 2500 users, than to sell to
2500 different barbershops. For one thing, CERN has competent IT staff who
won't be costing Microsoft a lot of money in support calls.

As for Google, they seem to actively be avoiding telephony. For example,
Gizmo5 used to offer SIP connectivity, and then Google got rid of Google Voice
forwarding to Gizmo5. And now the elimination of XMPP and the option to use
Obihai. Even Google Fiber was set up as a double-play instead of a triple-
play: they'll sell you Internet and television, but not phone.

I get the feeling that Google wants to make absolutely sure that it is not
regulated as a telephony provider, with all the hassles around 911, service
availability, being able to call high-cost rural exchanges, etc.

~~~
Oculus
_won 't be costing Microsoft a lot of money in support calls_

I think you've got it backwards, there's nothing Microsoft loves more then
support calls because that's where their real cash cow is: charging enterprise
monstrous yearly support fees.

~~~
tanzam75
In other words, enterprise support contracts are making Microsoft money -- not
_costing_ it money.

Consumers and small businesses aren't nearly as willing to open their wallets
for support. The best customer is one who pays the annual fee and never calls
in for support.

------
devx
I hope TextSecure/Whisper will get to have video-calling, too, soon. People
need to stop using insecure platforms like Skype that make mass spying so
easy.

~~~
dublinben
Video calling in Jitsi works fantastically right now. There's little excuse
for people still using proprietary video conferencing platforms.

~~~
npizzolato
The fact that you think people are making excuses to use proprietary video
conferencing platforms (or other communication platforms) is why things like
TextSecure and Jitsi will likely never take off. You're really just making
excuses for the TextSecure and Jitsi teams.

For the most part, no one cares whether they're using something that is open
source or proprietary. Most people don't event care much about abstract
concepts like "security" or "encryption" when it comes at the cost of their
real goal -- communicating with family and friends. Once some secure platform
is as easy to use[0] and as prevalent[1] as Skype or Google Hangouts, maybe
people will start using them.

[0] A sibling post suggests setting up Jitsi with IPv6 and starting the
program with the -6 parameter to fix some connection issues. I would hope it's
clear why needing to use certain command line parameters and understanding
"the implications of having a public address" to use a chat program makes it a
non-starter for a vast amount of people.

[1] As it turns out, advertising and marketing matter! You can't have a
popular chat platform if no one knows you exist!

~~~
hackuser
> For the most part, no one cares whether they're using something that is open
> source or proprietary. Most people don't event care much about abstract
> concepts like "security" or "encryption"

You say it as if it's universal and intractable. Awareness has jumped since
Snowden's revelations began, AFAICT, and I've read several places that
security-oriented services have seen a very large jump in demand.

------
izzydata
I feel like this was the only thing on the premium feature list that even
mattered. Does skype even generate revenue?

~~~
ktavera
Maybe group screen sharing is still limited to just premium subscribers?

~~~
Heliosmaster
Nope, they removed the premium option altogether.

------
gum_ina_package
Finally! I don't know anyone who likes G+ over Skype, but we all use it for
the group video features.

~~~
finkin1
I'm the CEO of a small remote-working startup with 5 employees. I pay $20/mo
for Skype since some of people I meet with only use that and I need the group
screen sharing feature. Whenever I have a Skype meeting, I'm nervous, because
50% of the time video or screen sharing won't work. Once I get them to switch
to Hangouts there's no problems, ever.

Are you telling me that you experience the opposite? If so, that's very odd.

~~~
perbu
We've been using hangouts more or less exclusively for at least a year.
Hangouts are very stable. When doing training we have hangout sessions that
last for two days (minus the nights of course). The problem with hangouts are
with access control. Most people are not signed in with an ID that matches
their email address and I still don't know how to schedule a hangout that is
protected only by it's URL.

~~~
lotharrr
I've been able to create URL-based "unlisted" hangouts with:

[http://plus.google.com/hangouts/_](http://plus.google.com/hangouts/_)

That will redirect you to a new hangout URL, and (in my experience) you can
just copy/paste the new URL to other folks. To use it, they'll need to be
logged into _a_ G+ account, but it doesn't matter which one.

~~~
julianz
Oh upvote the shit out of this! The only hassle we've had with Hangouts is how
to start one by yourself and then get a link that's easily pastable into IM so
everyone else can join, and this works like a charm.

------
wxm
It used to be free a few years ago too until it became 'premium' in early
2011. [1] Difference is that now Skype features more ads than in 2011, even if
you have multiple monthly subscriptions (A no-ad version is now a considerable
perk of the premium version).

[1] -
[http://www.macworld.com/article/1157435/skype5.html](http://www.macworld.com/article/1157435/skype5.html)

------
tshadwell
But will they update Skype for Linux to have group video at all?

~~~
fixedd
It's only been 4 years, give them time.

------
jamra
I use Skype everyday to communicate with family abroad. I have a camera
mounted on my television. The quality of Skype is abysmal. Most of the time,
you do not have HD video.

When I switch over to using facetime, the video quality is amazing. I don't
know what happened to Skype, but its quality is by far the worst available on
the market.

~~~
bertil
> The quality of Skype is abysmal. Most of the time, you do not have HD video.

That comment reminded me of what Louis CK says about wifi on the plane — or
attitude towards technology in general. I won’t link because the swear ratio
is… well he uses all the possible syntactical options of the f-bomb.

The quality difference is striking, and Skype pales in comparison. But live
video feed between common computers is something that, no matter the quality
of the feed, should still be seen as the miracle that it is, and somehow only
seem so to too few users. Doing that with limited central server is even more
impressive. It might not be enough to gather facial expression, and that _is_
a real problem for their offer. But what they do remains the result of ten
years of high level engineering, with broad room for progress in many
circumstances.

~~~
unoti
I appreciate the Louis CK argument, but when it comes to communication it
doesn't fully apply. Have you ever had a terrible cell phone connection in
which you can make out the words but conversation isn't really free and easy?
Then you switch to Skype or another medium where you can hear each other with
radically improved quality and less latency and then the conversation
progresses more smoothly and rapidly?

The same can happen with video. A low quality video connection is a mere
novelty, doing little to improve the conversation. A high quality video
connection, though, can dramatically improve the conversation. For example,
you can watch the expression in your partner's face to see when they are
confused, or disagree, or you need to slow down or go faster, and if your
points are resonating and connecting.

The Louis CK principle does apply, yes, its amazing. But just as video opens
doors not available to audio calls, high quality video calls open many doors
that low quality video calls do not.

------
gmjosack
I'd written Skype off as malware after it continued to put a browser extension
on my computer that parsed every single page I visited without my permission.
Even after removing the plugin it would regularly disappear. This behavior is
not okay.

~~~
Tagbert
If it is the plugin that I remember disabling, it reads the page looking for
phone numbers and creates buttons to make skype calls. Wasn't anything I
wanted so I disabled the plugin. no biggie.

------
yawz
Finally!

I've used many video conferencing solutions but I have the impression that
Skype is going to be the most convenient (largely because we're already using
Skype as a team). Sqwiggle[0] is pretty neat as well ( _Edit: I had to mention
that, AFAIK Sqwiggle doesn 't support group video conferencing_).

 _[0][https://www.sqwiggle.com/](https://www.sqwiggle.com/) _

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I like Sococo for teams (I work at Sococo). No scheduling conferences
(talk/view any time they're available); integrated video/chat/doc sharing; can
tell who's talking to whom/who's not busy/who has their door shut.

~~~
yawz
Thanks for the reference. I'll definitely check it out.

That's what I like with Sqwiggle (or similar tools). It's the ease of
connecting with a team member using video. (I'm just noticing something: I
forgot to mention that AFAIK Sqwiggle doesn't support group conferencing.).
Your connection/team member is a click away and you know if they're at their
desk thanks to the snapshots.

~~~
hiharryhere
With sqwiggle you can group conference a bunch of people by clicking everyone.
You all get joined. Pretty neat.

Unfortunately the way it reacts to changes in bandwidth isn't up to hangouts
or skype. We've got one team member working out in the sticks and it just
drops out when his bandwidth gets choked. Hangouts on the other hand just
falls back gracefully to audio only.

If we all had better connections sqwiggle would be more of a contender.

~~~
tommoor
Thanks guys! We're working hard on improving Sqwiggle's quality on low
bandwidth / multiparty calls :-D

------
dalanmiller
Does anyone else refuse to use Skype because Microsoft was complicit with
PRISM?

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-
nsa-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-
collaboration-user-data)

~~~
scrrr
Of course. They should suffer the loss of ALL their users if you ask me. If
anyone here is still using Skype, I wonder what kind of community this is and
what kind of future we are building..

------
exo762
Skype, awesome communication tool, turned most expensive honeypot ever.

------
badman_ting
Nice! Paying a premium for this was a bummer, but it does still work better
than all of Skype's competitors, in my opinion. The primary problem of
Hangouts and whatever else is out there is audio echo. I don't know if that
problem is simply unsolvable in Flash or what, but Skype has handled it much
better. All you need is one person on your Hangout call who doesn't mute their
mic and the experience is a disaster, unfortunately.

~~~
marquis
>audio echo

That's a difference in the audio algorithms used. Skype uses SILK while I
believe that Google Hangouts uses Opus. SILK and Opus are closely related
however. I would assume that Skype didn't allow all their fancy echo-
cancellation tweaks to be open-sourced so it's a little better in the Skype
implementation.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SILK#Opus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SILK#Opus)

------
paul_f
I see another player that Skype is going after - WebEx. Most uses for WebEx
are simple video chatting. Most times no one need the dozens of other features
that WebEx offers in their bloated product. In true innovators dilemma
fashion, I can see Skype now truly eating into WebEx's market from the bottom
up.

------
atonse
Funny - because just last week I setup new dummy google plus accounts for
various family members in Europe and India so we could use hangouts without
polluting our regular gmail accounts with Google+ nonsense.

We won't need that anymore - We were perfectly happy with Skype, but missed
group video.

~~~
spankalee
I work for Google, so I'm obviously biased here, though I don't always like
everything we do around our sites and integration.

But, I'm genuinely curious, what nonsense does Google+ pollute your regular
Google account with? I believe that you get a profile page, but you can leave
it entirely blank.

~~~
gregcohn
If you're seriously asking, I'm happy to answer my two cents, but i'm very
concerned that you don't have a sense for the reasons people would want to use
G+ gated products without being part of G+.

As someone who has a personal G+ account and doesn't mind, and who runs a
company that pays Google for apps for my domain on which we manage our email,
I still had to register for G+ to be able to use the hangouts product in
invitations and threads I'm having with my work email. Now that I've done so
(without adding a profile photo or anything else), i'm getting tons of people
adding me to circles, etc., which I don't want. It's essentially forcing a
social-connection construct on a relationship with an empty profile that I
don't want to create or have to maintain.

~~~
isomorphic
I agree completely. I am _astonished_ that Google people genuinely don't
understand the things that are off-putting about Google+.

I've never even tried Hangouts because of the G+ requirement. I suppose if I
had to, I'd create a one-off account for the purpose.

~~~
chetanahuja
well to be fair, plenty of google employees are/have-been fully aware of (and
vocal about) the various problems with forced G+ integrations on users. It's
just that those employees haven't had any power to change those decisions.
With the recent changes in leadership, things _may_ change.

~~~
gregcohn
This may be true, but it is not the POV implied in OP's question.

------
trustfundbaby
Just happy that screensharing is free again ... I was forced to go create a
Google+ hangout account just to get access to this functionality. Glad I can
just go ahead and delete that now.

------
Lockyy
I wonder if this includes group screen share That and the group video are the
only two reasons any of the people I know have Skype premium.

~~~
sinaa
It does, according to the replies here by Skype
[http://blogs.skype.com/2014/04/28/skype-loves-bringing-
group...](http://blogs.skype.com/2014/04/28/skype-loves-bringing-groups-
together-with-free-group-video-calling/)

------
tzakrajs
Skype group video calling becomes free (again)

------
wusatiuk
cool. anybody using conference call equipment for skype? We have tried some
logitech quipment to connect 2 offices ([http://www.logitech.com/de-
de/product/tvcam-hd](http://www.logitech.com/de-de/product/tvcam-hd)) which
didn´t work out very well. any recommendations?

~~~
dave_sullivan
Why not have everyone call in from their own machine? This way, it normalizes
the communication bandwidth between everyone, no one feels like it's harder to
be heard. A big failing of many remote teams I've seen is when they try to
"strap on" a remote team. But if you can minimize the feeling of "real office
vs virtual office" it works a lot better.

~~~
wusatiuk
generally a good idea but we need some kind of conference system, if there is
a meeting at office #1 with e.g. four people, to connect the one or another
colleague form office #2.

------
subdane
Another neat fact - announced in a Youtube video!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4C1DGzHiis&list=PLaLRbjVhH6...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4C1DGzHiis&list=PLaLRbjVhH6kJOvE3V28UbfkuF_4xaA2MR)

~~~
webwanderings
Strange, on their website, they "recommend" group talking with 5 people. On
above YouTube video, they said, you "can" talk with 10 people.

~~~
aroch
I imagine 5 is the upper bounds in their testing for users on the low/mid-
level speed tiers from ISPs (ie. what most consumers buy) for "acceptable"
video quality.

------
AxisOfEval
Too little. Too late. My team and me moved from Skype to Hangouts and then to
Fuze already. We're very happy with Fuze. More here:
[https://www.fuze.com/](https://www.fuze.com/)

------
skiltz
In New Zealand I always come back to Skype. It just works, always seem to have
issues with Google Hangouts and FaceTime.

------
good-citizen
This is awesome! Been wanting this for years but never wanted to pay for it
because there are so many free options.

------
felipesabino
Good timing microsoft, specially now that we have this for free for an year
already using google hangouts

------
Loque
That title/URL is bugging me, I was thinking in a more cynical world it may
read something like:

"skype-is-concerned-of-competition-and-matches-features"

About the spying, I feel sorry for any poor sucker watching my life! :¬D All
that effort for such little excitement.

~~~
valevk
I am pretty sure, if I had access to your skype chat/camera I would find
enough information to extort you. There is one moment, or one line of text or
one picture that you don't want to escape your mind.

~~~
Loque
Edit: Meh, pointless reply is pointless, I'll just agree, it's easier.

My attempts at humouring others escapes me once again... a well.

------
brador
What's the best open source alternative to Skype?

~~~
leorocky
Skype is a service, not just a desktop client. It's like asking what the best
open source alternative to Google search or Google maps might be.

~~~
Istof
Can you point me to Skype's API? I always thought that Skype was a closed
protocol and that they don't want any other client applications using their
service...

~~~
rlu
Messenger probably didn't want any other clients using their service, but that
didn't stop the Pidgins and Trillians of the world... :)

~~~
Istof
Very true but Skype appears to present a much bigger problem for reverse
engineering (I have only seen someone reverse engineer the texting part of
Skype and not the video)

------
terrifixrex
Finally! Google Hangouts had it since,like forever

------
JetSpiegel
I like the smell of competition by the morning.

------
huangc10
this made my Monday

------
G711
Oh, now the NSA wants your group sex tapes too?

