Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Skype for iPhone 2.0 released with 3G calls supported!!
- Thread starter uberjason
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually no. That grocer bought their store property way back when land in the eventually ritzy part of town was a lot cheaper. It's in California, where prop 13 keeps even their taxes low. Whereas the discount grocery market on the other side of town is paying rent out the kazoo because a new greedy developer took over that strip mall.
Prices have nothing to do with rent, or any other costs, other than that if the price gets driven too low, the business goes under, and the potential customer has to go elsewhere for product.
Quality will obviously depend on the strength of the 3G and like all skype calls if the connection isn't good I just hang up and call back. I currently pay for the unlimited North America, it's under £20 a year and I can phone anybody's mobile or landline in NA and it truly is unlimited. Been using it for ages and it's never let me down. I don't mind paying for a service.
This is a good test to see how people are going to react next week when Steve announces that iChat video calling onwifi will be free but on 3G will either cost a fee or count toward your minutes. I think that this is enivitable and the only way AT&T might let It go without a fee is a big bump on the exclusivity agreement
Article slightly inaccurate
Not to nit pick, but AT&T changed its position on VOIP earlier than January. In Oct 2009 the released a press release stating their new policy allowing VOIP over 3G. It was Apple that updated their policy in January 2010 to allow VOIP apps to run over 3G.
Not to nit pick, but AT&T changed its position on VOIP earlier than January. In Oct 2009 the released a press release stating their new policy allowing VOIP over 3G. It was Apple that updated their policy in January 2010 to allow VOIP apps to run over 3G.
Skype, due to its peer-to-peer protocol, does not "handle" any of the VoIP traffic in any Skype-to-Skype calls. Your VoIP data only passes through Skype's datacentres if you originate or receive a call whose other participant is using a different communication medium (such as a standard telephone), for which Skype itself is providing the media conversion service.
It is entirely reasonable for Skype to take measures to recover its operating expenses, pay for future research and development to sustain its competitiveness, and make enough profit to deliver good returns to its shareholders. If Skype is unable to get enough income from its existing advertising initiatives and its Skype-to-telephone subscription fees, then it would be perfectly acceptable for them to look into either increasing those fees, or else introducing fees for other types of services that used to be free.
It is entirely unreasonable, though, for Skype to arbitrarily discriminate in its fee structure by charging different fees to different people for providing what is technologically the exact same service (Skype-to-Skype calls), incurring exactly the same costs, based solely upon the ISPs the participants are using to connect to each other.
If it were true that AT&T, as an ISP, had decided that they would charge a toll to carry Skype-encoded data over their wireless internet connection, then it would be reasonable for AT&T to charge the call participants directly. If that proved too impractical due to obfuscated intermediate nodes participating in the peer-to-peer connections (each of which is actually another Skype customer's computer, not a Skype-owned server), then a logical next step would be to hold Skype itself ransom, threatening to block all Skype traffic from flowing over AT&T's network, thereby creating ill-will between Skype and its customers, unless Skype agreed to pay AT&T off. And in that case, it only makes sense that Skype would pass any extra costs associated with such a requirement on to their customers. Trouble is, we don't have any evidence of such a policy on AT&T's side.
So we have to assume that Skype is considering the possibility of monetizing 3G Skype-to-Skype calls on their own initiative. And to me, if they were going to charge some users based upon their ISP, then it would be hypocritical of them not to charge all Skype-to-Skype users regardless of the ISP they are using.
The cheapest human beings alive live in this thread. A "small fee" means small. And they're offering a new service for free (Skype on 3G) as a PRIVILEGE for its customers for a limited time. Stop complaining, cheapos. Do you think it costs nothing to run Skype?
Most aren't complaining about paying for a service, most are complaining about being charged TWICE for the same service. Skype has nothing to do with AT&T's 3G service, so while it's free for WiFi why are they charging a fee for 3G when they do not operate AT&T's 3G service and do not charge for the same service on other networks? That is what most commentators take issue with, not the fee, but the principle behind the fee.
Do we have push?
Do we have an ipad app?
Does my mac client have working voicemail?
Fix your crap, Skype.
Do we have an ipad app?
Does my mac client have working voicemail?
Fix your crap, Skype.
check out the Skype blog. It says free skype to skype until the end of 2010..
so the iphone says August 2010 but the blog says end of 2010.
I love Skype. Have a subscription for Unlimited US and Canada, and another one for Unlimited to Colombia with another screen name. I've paid $90 a year for both subscription. Very Cheap!!!
Hope the 3G fee is included with the subscriptions.
its not really a new service tho, as other phones have been doing it for a couple of years... also techincally anyone using a usb mobile broadband dongle is technically doing skype over 3G. its flat out discrimination to iPhone users and its absurd.
also to all the people that are saying jailbreak, have you considered that people don't want to jailbreak their phones...
yea they backtracked and changed it from august to end of 2010 pretty quick, but the app still says august as its built into 2.0 and they won't release a new version just to alter a little line.
its just ridiculous to pay twice to use 3G.
If you think you could do better and cheaper, start your own company, and let us have all those features.
I updated hoping that Skype finally fixed the issue that I couldn't do SkypeOut on a bluetooth headset, however that seems to be still be the case. That definitely annoys me, and now puts me in the frame of mind to be very annoyed by the fact that I, as a Rogers customer, have been prevented from SkypeOut calls on 3G all this time because of an AT&T policy (as I have trouble believing Rogers changed their policy at the exact same time).
But on the flip-side, I wonder ... how does Rogers feel about the fact that AT&T has so much control over how I use the Rogers network?
But on the flip-side, I wonder ... how does Rogers feel about the fact that AT&T has so much control over how I use the Rogers network?
This is sort of off topic, but since you mentioned it...
In theory, the HDTV conversion was supposed to allow people to get 2 to 3 times the number of over the air FREE TV channels as they currently got via analog due to sub-channels and additional new TV stations, but the FCC screwed that up through a series of miscalculations and flubs and many TV stations don't even run a sub-channel...
#1 The FCC chose a poor system for easy indoor reception in urban areas instead of the more robust European DTV system.
#2 The FCC compressed the TV dial and # of frequencies too much as part of the conversion to auction the airspace to cellular companies and for stuff like, BINGO, SKYPE, when, in hindsight, there could have been many more NEW over the air TV stations within the original 2-59 channel range if the original plan had gone through.
#3 The excessive compression of the frequency range of the over the air TV dial has caused more interference than the FCC originally tested the HDTV system for and in fact there ended up not being enough frequency space for the resulting # of existing channels. Good example: Philadelphia's WPVI ABC 6 really wanted to leave channel 6 and move to UHF because low-band DTV signals just don't travel very well, the exact opposite of analog OTA reception. This was not studied enough ahead of time and WPVI was left without a UHF frequency available to move to and therefor is stuck on channel 6 and one of the few HDTV stations to be left on channel 6 and indoor reception is now difficult.
However, there is some good news...
If you have an outdoor antenna with a rotor, chances are you really can get 2X the number of TV stations you used to get. But, if you have an indoor antenna, you are screwed and probably get LESS TV stations than before the big HD switch, especially if you live in an urban area.
Basically, the FCC screwed the HDTV switch up completely because it was beholden to the cellular industry and because media companies that own local TV stations didn't want new TV channels in local markets that might compete with them and the FCC listened to big business instead of properly handling the public's airwaves.
That in a nutshell is why most people cannot get over the air TV in their houses anymore. In a perfect world, the FCC would have stuck with the original channel 59 limit and people really would get 2-3X the number of FREE TV stations in their home right now as we speak.
Update:
Skype confirms delays calls till atleast the end of 2010
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/31/skype-quietly-delays-charges-for-iphone-app-calling/
Skype confirms delays calls till atleast the end of 2010
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/31/skype-quietly-delays-charges-for-iphone-app-calling/
yea, think most people here knew that yesterday afternoon when the details page changed regarding the trial...
I don't like this, not one little bit. However, have y'all thought about one possible reason for this? I'm not SURE... but it may be these calls cost them more. Traditionally, Skype uses a P2P (Peer to Peer) protocol to keep their bandwidth costs down. Maybe they're ditching the P2P in order to minimize bandwidth use and maximize the quality of service?
I'm sure this has already been posted but...
I'm still sportin the original iPhone (plans to upgrade soon) and I made a Skype call over the edge network last night by mistake, I had turned my wifi off. Wasn't until about 15 minutes into the call that I noticed. Worked great. Good to see AT&T being a little less retarded. And thank you, Skype
I'm still sportin the original iPhone (plans to upgrade soon) and I made a Skype call over the edge network last night by mistake, I had turned my wifi off. Wasn't until about 15 minutes into the call that I noticed. Worked great. Good to see AT&T being a little less retarded. And thank you, Skype
why make comments like this
are Skypes customers not entitled to expect improvements or issues to be resolved?
I'd like to believe that Skype has some reasoning along those lines to warrant a fee
otherwise...
What are you talking about???
Skype's Unlimited US & Canada is only $2.99/mo. vs. Line2's $15.
Exactly. I don't get charged by ESPN.com to go on their website because my ISP is ATT.
You never know when/if you ever need to call 911. Remember, Skype does not allow emergency calls. Just something to think about before making the switch.