I see quite a lot of good reasons for it - but the site fails to list any decent alternatives. I don't think there are any at this point.
To give you an impression of things that might speak against using Skype (not that I want to imply that these should matter to you. I merely want to speak for the 'I'd like to leave (but cannot)' side):
1) It's proprietary. We cannot validate the protocol without reverse engineering (and even then they'd be free to break/change it). The security of Skype calls, one of the loudest arguments for using it, is dubious and it seems to be a fact by now that governments are allowed to/capable of recoding your calls.
2) Resource heavy: If you ever compared a Skype conference (audio only) with any other system, the resource usage is ridiculous. Mostly CPU, but also network wise.
3) In your face advertisements: The (unacceptable) UI constantly pops up with 'subscribe here'/'buy credits there'/'did you know all the other ways you can hand over your money'. You can turn off most of these, but an update usually leads to the very same thing.
4) Maybe related to the P2P architecture: The behavior is unpredictable at times. I often see people online, they don't see me. Or vice versa. I can talk to someone on Skype, but messages (say, a link) fail to be delivered. Sometimes messages queue up for hours and completely lose their meaning when they arrive at 1am, asking about having lunch.
What I have never understood about any of these arguments is the demonization of corporations for the purposes of argument.
IF, and I stress if, there is a better option, for users then I suggest use it. But arguments such as it was bought by Microsoft therefore it must be bad do not make sense.
To be more specific, Skype had all the valid issues it had (such as proprietary format, advertising etc.) before it was acquired by Microsoft. The only new factor is its acquisition.
The fact that certain companies, Microsoft, IBM etc. have an 'evil', 'corporate' air about them, whereas companies (and this is a generalization for the sake of example) such as Google and Apple are the good guys don't make sense.
I would like to see free software promoted for its merits, and to see bogus arguments based around who makes the product to disappear from the IT world.
No company is less evil than any other, and whether products should be used or not should not depend on who owns them, but how the products operate.
"Evilness" is not judged only by potential, but also by reputation based on previous history. Clearly companies are in the business of making money, so at some point they may break rules in order to make money, but so do individuals when placed in positions of power.
And no baby is more evil than any other baby, but grownups are very different in that regard, that's why people rely so much on reputation when discussing a person's ethics and trustworthiness, since it's the only metric that counts.
Clearly you can compare the evilness of any 2 companies by looking at their past history, just as we do with individual human beings.
whether products should be used or not
should not depend on who owns them
This argument only holds if after the purchase you OWN said product. But this is not the case with proprietary software, and even less so with web-based services. In such instances you're actually leasing the product and you're depending on the company's good will for continued maintenance and improvement of said product. And because switching products goes from easy to next to impossible, with lock-in effects and all that, the relationship that a company establishes with you after becoming a customer is very important, as you depend on that relationship.
And when building relationships in general, you also have to take into account how that company or person is treating other customers.
Not that open-source products are any better (I'm referring to those who's main sponsor retains copyrights for all contributions), as there have been instances where communities haven't read the "fine print", with the main sponsors later turning around and screwing with said communities. See Sun/Oracle and their schizophrenic involvement in projects such as Mysql and Java.
This is the main reason why companies are acting the way they do, constantly screwing their customers, because customers take it as a fact of life that such companies can screw with them.
Imagine if your neighbor took a piss in your roses every Friday, and you found out about it. Would you still lent him your lawn mower next time he asks? Why would you allow companies to constantly piss on your lawn, instead of voting with your wallet and taking your business to some other company that cares more about you?
I mean, capitalism itself only works efficiently if you are voting with your wallet.
Microsoft (and most tech companies) are not very evil in comparison so I think it's very possible to make a quick heuristic determination about how evil two companies are.
Now, take away Xe and compare Microsoft, Google, IBM, and Apple for example. Certainly one is most evil and one is the least evil.
The problem I think you're pointing out is that they are probably very close to each other on the good-evil spectrum. Our moral irises have just opened all the way because we sit in comfortable padded chairs and wiggle our fingers over a plastic box all day to make a nice living.
> To be more specific, Skype had all the valid issues it had (such as proprietary format, advertising etc.) before it was acquired by Microsoft.
Since you responded to my comment, let me reply to this with 'Exactly. I didn't (intended to) imply anything else'. We're on the same page.
Sure, some people might look into alternatives because of other reasons (aquisition). My reply listed just issues I have with the product itself though (and for a long time already..).
