I agree tapping into the existing userbase is enticing. And that's no doubt what some people are trying to do (e.g. the Russians).
But all VOIP codecs are not created equal. Skype's success is not due to NAT piercing. Even though Skype easy to use, maybe easier than previous SIP alternatives, if calls sounded terrible, people would not use it. Skype's success is due to being usable and having decent sound quality. They did not use the decades old codecs other softphones used. They wrote new ones. And anyone can use them.
Using the same codec as Skype uses should not in any way bind you to their network. It has nothing to do with compatibility. It has to due with getting Skype-level sound quality. Quality that the older codecs have failed to deliver.
It's easy to get people to sign up for free voice and video calls. The key word is "free". You do not have to find inroads into the "Skype user base". Skype spread by word of mouth. If people learn about another client that works as well or better (same sound quality), and it's easy to use, they will almost certainly try it.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood what you were trying to say in your comment. But I do not understand your reasoning.
This is why it's amusing to watch trademark registrants going after domain names based on confusing variations of their registered mark.
Meanwhile their trademarks are being hijacked by DNS services and ISP's, in order to show ads, probably far more often (since these services and ISP's have huge user bases).
And for the trademark registrants, ISP's are much easier to locate and take action against than evasive domain name miscreants.
It's great they support it, but how many people have DNSCurve enabled authoritative nameservers? And how many OpenDNS cache users are routing their queries through a DNSCurve forwarder?
It's the same as with DNSSEC. To get the full benefit, every point in the chain needs to be on board, from the source to the sink. If any link in the chain doesn't support it, you're SOL.
If you read Dempsky's announcement carefully, you notice the words "whenever possible". That could be almost never depending on DNSCurve uptake among DNS admins and users.
An easier solution is to just run your own instance of dnscache.
I wouldn't take part in this for "credentials". I would do it for the sake of learning. Some of that acquired knowledge might be applied for commercial gain, some might not. Does it matter? The cost is the cost of an internet connection and time invested in learning. Hopefully what they produce will closely mirror the course contents and requirements for their undergraduate courses.
This is also how OpenDNS makes money. Neustar does the same. And probably others too. They call this "DNS service". Anyone can run a resolver, including your next door neighbor. Unless you live next to a datacenter, your neighbour's "DNS service" will likely be faster than Google's or any commercial vendor. It's been suggested the optimum number of users for a decent cache is probably around 10 [source: IPJ]. Can you trust 10 people not to poison the cache? How many users do you think the "DNS service" providers have? Can you trust each and every one of those users? As for DNSSEC, most people running authoritative nameservers for websites do not support it, let alone most domain name registries.
Interesting to note: no rDNS for either of those IP's.
MS will contribute nothing to the state of the art of free voice and video calls over the internet. As is so often the case, what they purchased with the Skype deal was a user base. One that they could never obtain with the own products.
There is a way to do this without violating copyright.
Do not waste time duplicating the P2P element of Skype (the P2P protocol). P2P protocols have been done, several ways, some of them are easily good enough, maybe even smarter than Skype's (e.g., avoiding the exposure of your IP to the entire internet) and enough of the code is GPL'd or BSD licensed to keep things open. We have ample solutions for P2P. View that as the "open platform".
Now you need "apps" to run on it. First one is a softphone, but with Skype's codecs.
Focus on creating a standalone softphone using Skype's codecs.
Does MS have exclusive rights (patent rights) on Skype's codecs? Not even close. They did not develop them. The patent license could fit on a single page; it's as simple as they come: build stuff, pay nothing.
All three criteria you mention are very easy to meet. Skype's GUI was thrown together quickly in Delphi. Yet it's good enough for most users. The bar is set very low.
Features could be added to a next generation "open Skype" (e.g. streaming music or video to several of your friends, simultaneously) that would make it even more fun and attractive, but the RIAA and MPAA would be up in arms within 24 hrs of release.
HN is a place where we routinely discuss things that "normal people" don't care about. That doesn't mean those things are not important. Someone has to deal with the details that enable you to make your easy, fun and free calls, though you might not care such details.
I'm definitely not a FOSS zealot. However I might be a zealot for simplicity, lucidity, keeping code small, unclever and boring, making compilation quick and easy, not tolerating many of the annoyances so many folks routinely accept. I do not like "black boxes". Even if they work.
re: Skype I simply see no reason that something so essential, and so simple, as a P2P application (note the P2P application does not have to be tied to the VOIP application, or whatever applications you want to run over the P2P connection) needs to be a proprietary product.
It does need to work and work well. The P2P element does that. It will consistently work. It's the audio/video element that is difficult to get right across all connections in all environments.
Perhaps that's why you read some people saying Skype works great for them and other saying it doesn't work so great. Consider that in every case, the connection gets set up just fine. People can connect very easily. P2P is the easy part. It's the audio/video quality that varies. Because everyone's bandwidth situation is different.
Unfortunately there's a lot of chatter about NAT, IPv6, crytography, and other non-issues, which distracts people from focusing the real issue: codecs; making the audio/video element work smoothly over a variety of bandwidth scenarios. That's what everyone wants: clear sound and video.
If you do not fear the command line and want to see a proof of concept of how easy P2P is to set up, leave some way for me to contact you.
Try not to think in terms of server and client being separate machines. Or thinking that a server needs to be complex or able to handle an unlimited number of nodes. It's possible to be both a client and a server. And that is in fact what Skype was doing. Some clients were also functioning as supernodes.
What did I link to? I'm well aware of the Apple "rules" as well as the rationale behind them. If you have superiror knowledge about Apple that puts them in a better light, then please share details.
Nothing wrong with what Skype did. He made his money. Good for him. The point is that Skype is not magic. It's something that can be replicated, with simplicity and transparency.
I agree, the greed factor is great. And one would imagine some of those with the skill to make a "Skype" might think "Why should I do this for free?" Then you also have the perfectionists, with the skills, who won't attempt to build something that cannot be "perfect". They love to say "It won't work."
Skype is not perfect. And it's very non-transparent. But people are using it.
Should the next Skype be free and open? Is it worth building? I think the answers will become evident going forward. I think communication over the internet is too important to be solely controlled by [insert unflattering description here].
The need to have Wikipedia in search engine results is perplexing. Why not just search Wikiepdia? It is certainly not slower. They even provide SSL.
Is it the lack of full text search on Wikipedia?
I've experimented with building a full-text search for Wikipedia. But so much of the content is just copied verbatim from the sites listed in the References and External Links, it seems not worth the effort.
What's remarkable is that Apple is suppopsedly desintined to be the most profitable company in US history and they still feel the need to do this kind of thing. It says a lot about the character of the company. Pretty sad spectacle, no matter how much money they make.:wq