|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > August 2007 > Skype comes to the iPhone
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Skype comes to the iPhone
|
|
| Oxford 2007-08-16, 12:33 pm |
| iPhone fans are set have their wish granted, with the news that a German
firm has developed an application that brings Skype functionality to the
device.
One of the complaints that users of the hybrid phone and MP3 player had
was relating to its instant messaging functionality, or lack thereof.
German firm Shape Media has stepped in to fill the gap.
The application, dubbed "IM+ for Skype", transforms the iPhone into a
Skype handset. The web application, which works through the iPhone's
Safari web browser, allows iPhones to use the Skype messaging service
along with its Voice over IP (VoIP) network.
By logging on to skypeforiphone.com, users can access their Skype
account, allowing them to make free Skype to Skype calls, and use their
SkypeOut credits to make calls to landlines and mobile phones around the
world. According to Shape Media, the application will work across
different networks and does not require Wi-Fi to operate.
more here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...kype_on_iphone/
(this link only works with safari / safari for iphone)
http://skypeforiphone.com/index_iphone.jsp
| |
| Tinman 2007-08-16, 3:33 pm |
| "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> iPhone fans are set have their wish granted, with the news that a German
> firm has developed an application that brings Skype functionality to the
> device.
>
It doesn't bring any Skype functionality other than IM. You can't make calls
with using Skype directly, you need to have Skype call you back on your
cellphone, and it conferences in the other party. Crude and not cost
effective--yes, even for international calls.
--
Mike
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-16, 3:33 pm |
| "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
>
> It doesn't bring any Skype functionality other than IM. You can't make calls
> with using Skype directly, you need to have Skype call you back on your
> cellphone, and it conferences in the other party. Crude and not cost
> effective--yes, even for international calls.
ah, no. it gives you full call capability, that's the point.
"It is web service that allows you to enjoy Skype functionality on your
iPhone. You may stay online no matter where you are, chat with your
friends and colleagues and call/receive calls at a low cost"
it's doing the call transfer on the backend, not through the iphone,
otherwise it's the same as normal skype.
http://wap.shapeservices.com/iphone/info.php
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-16, 10:33 pm |
| At 16 Aug 2007 14:27:40 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> ah, no. it gives you full call capability, that's the point.
Actually, it's a big, fat kludge, at least as far as Voice calls are
concerned. =20
A web service that arranges a callback to ANY telephone number and
charges you twice for one call? There's nothing special about the iPh=
one
that makes this service happen, except they block non-Safari access to=
try and convince you this crummy service is somehow using the iPhone f=
or
something other than submitting a javascript form over the web! =20
As far as "full call capability" I don't see anything on the website t=
hat
allows you to get INCOMING Skype calls on your iPhone, (but I might ha=
ve
missed it.)
=20
> "It is web service that allows you to enjoy Skype functionality on y=
our=20
> iPhone. You may stay online no matter where you are, chat with your =
> friends and colleagues and call/receive calls at a low cost"
Not THAT low...
From the webpage you pointed us to below:
"Why do I need to have SkypeOut to talk to my Skype contacts?=20
"SkypeOut is used to call your number back. Please read our FAQ secti=
on
to learn why..."=20
So, it's charging YOU (against your SkypeOut credit) to connect the ca=
ll
from their service to your iPhone (or any phone you select.)
So, in effect, any Skype to Skype call is no longer free (it's charged=
at
Skype-Out rates to your iPhone - $0.021/min. plus a 4-cent connection =
fee)
and an actual Skype-Out (Skype to landline/mobile) call will cost dou=
ble
or more. ($0.021/min for the callback to you, the SkypeOut rate for
whatever country you call, and the 4-cent connection fee.)
From http://wap.shapeservices.com/iphone/save.php :
"Example 2: Call from UK Vodafone phone to landline in USA
"Let's say Mary is on IM+ for Skype, lives in UK and her carrier is
Vodafone. Mary wants to call her college friend who lives in USA, Flor=
ida
to her phone number. To calculate the SkypeOut rate, just add the
destination rate for calling to to UK Vodafone (=80 0.205) and the
destination rate to call to USA (=80 0.017). So the rate to call from =
USA
to UK via IM+ is =80 0.222 per minute plus the connection fee rate (=80=
0.039)."
> it's doing the call transfer on the backend, not through the iphone,=
=20
Transfer? There's no "transfer"- it's connecting two separate calls
together, and you're paying for both of them! The only magic here (vs=
..
any other web-based callback service) is their ability to siphon money=
out of your Skype account automatically, rather than forcing you open =
an
acoount with them. Seems like a more polished version of the kludgy
"Skype hack" announced a few days after the iPhone launch.
> otherwise it's the same as normal skype.
No, it's a pathetic workaround for devices that can't run a Skype clie=
nt,
and it's not even a good one!
Like with most of our "revolutionary" iPhone conversations, you ignore=
the fact that this too, is nothing new. You want Skype on your iPhone=
?=20
I'll give you two better solutions for the price of one:
For ease of use and low cost (free!) there's Mobivox (www.mobivox.com.=
)
It allows one to call their Skype contacts for free from ANY landline =
or
cellphone (using just airtime, obviously) without ANY software. This
makes a call fromm iPhone-to-Skype contact free, and, as a bonus, no w=
eb-
interface is needed. (It's a voice-controlled service available by a
simple outgoing phone call.)
For those who want to do the work themselves, there are all kinds of U=
SB
Skype "Callboxes" that connect to your PC and your landline. You call=
your landline from your cellphone and it allows you to call your conta=
cts
through Skype using your PC. They can also connect incoming Skype cal=
ls
to your mobile through your landline. =20
That covers cheaper ways to call Skype contacts (free vs. SkypeOut rat=
e.)
Now for international calls, SkypeForIphone loses again- for
international calls you'd be better off with either of the aforementio=
ned
Mobivox or USB solutions, or a low-cost "pinless" calling card that
recognizes your iPhone's CID (like OneSuite.com offers), or a "cellula=
r-
to-VoIP bridge" service like Voicestick provides.
SkypeforIphone seems like a Skype app developer is trying to cash in
before anyone figures out a better (or actually, a "real") way to do i=
t.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures=20
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for=20
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with=20
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003=20
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-16, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 16 Aug 2007 14:27:40 -0600 Oxford wrote:
>
>
> Actually, it's a big, fat kludge, at least as far as Voice calls are
> concerned.
>
> A web service that arranges a callback to ANY telephone number and
> charges you twice for one call? There's nothing special about the iPhone
> that makes this service happen, except they block non-Safari access to
> try and convince you this crummy service is somehow using the iPhone for
> something other than submitting a javascript form over the web!
>
> As far as "full call capability" I don't see anything on the website that
> allows you to get INCOMING Skype calls on your iPhone, (but I might have
> missed it.)
>
>
> Not THAT low...
>
> From the webpage you pointed us to below:
>
> "Why do I need to have SkypeOut to talk to my Skype contacts?
> "SkypeOut is used to call your number back. Please read our FAQ section
> to learn why..."
>
> So, it's charging YOU (against your SkypeOut credit) to connect the call
> from their service to your iPhone (or any phone you select.)
>
> So, in effect, any Skype to Skype call is no longer free (it's charged at
> Skype-Out rates to your iPhone - $0.021/min. plus a 4-cent connection fee)
> and an actual Skype-Out (Skype to landline/mobile) call will cost double
> or more. ($0.021/min for the callback to you, the SkypeOut rate for
> whatever country you call, and the 4-cent connection fee.)
>
> From http://wap.shapeservices.com/iphone/save.php :
>
> "Example 2: Call from UK Vodafone phone to landline in USA
> "Let's say Mary is on IM+ for Skype, lives in UK and her carrier is
> Vodafone. Mary wants to call her college friend who lives in USA, Florida
> to her phone number. To calculate the SkypeOut rate, just add the
> destination rate for calling to to UK Vodafone (€ 0.205) and the
> destination rate to call to USA (€ 0.017). So the rate to call from USA
> to UK via IM+ is € 0.222 per minute plus the connection fee rate (€
> 0.039)."
>
>
> Transfer? There's no "transfer"- it's connecting two separate calls
> together, and you're paying for both of them! The only magic here (vs.
> any other web-based callback service) is their ability to siphon money
> out of your Skype account automatically, rather than forcing you open an
> acoount with them. Seems like a more polished version of the kludgy
> "Skype hack" announced a few days after the iPhone launch.
>
>
> No, it's a pathetic workaround for devices that can't run a Skype client,
> and it's not even a good one!
>
> Like with most of our "revolutionary" iPhone conversations, you ignore
> the fact that this too, is nothing new. You want Skype on your iPhone?
> I'll give you two better solutions for the price of one:
>
> For ease of use and low cost (free!) there's Mobivox (www.mobivox.com.)
> It allows one to call their Skype contacts for free from ANY landline or
> cellphone (using just airtime, obviously) without ANY software. This
> makes a call fromm iPhone-to-Skype contact free, and, as a bonus, no web-
> interface is needed. (It's a voice-controlled service available by a
> simple outgoing phone call.)
>
> For those who want to do the work themselves, there are all kinds of USB
> Skype "Callboxes" that connect to your PC and your landline. You call
> your landline from your cellphone and it allows you to call your contacts
> through Skype using your PC. They can also connect incoming Skype calls
> to your mobile through your landline.
>
> That covers cheaper ways to call Skype contacts (free vs. SkypeOut rate.)
> Now for international calls, SkypeForIphone loses again- for
> international calls you'd be better off with either of the aforementioned
> Mobivox or USB solutions, or a low-cost "pinless" calling card that
> recognizes your iPhone's CID (like OneSuite.com offers), or a "cellular-
> to-VoIP bridge" service like Voicestick provides.
>
> SkypeforIphone seems like a Skype app developer is trying to cash in
> before anyone figures out a better (or actually, a "real") way to do it.
Sounds like Todd Allcock is VERY SCARED of this much cheaper service.
Prices are about 1/5th what it cost to make a Cell Call. No wonder he is
scared!
and an error...
you said: plus a 4-cent connection fee <--
when really it's connection fee rate 0.039 cent connection fee <--
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-16, 10:33 pm |
| At 16 Aug 2007 17:36:12 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> Sounds like Todd Allcock is VERY SCARED of this much cheaper service.
> Prices are about 1/5th what it cost to make a Cell Call.
Because it's cheaper than a cellphone call it's ok to be gouged by this
crappy workaround service?
I've already pointed out how to get the same, (or better) level of
service both using Skype, or other alternatives on your iPhone for half
the price (or less) than using SkypeForIPhone.com. Sorry to try to save
you a few bucks.
> No wonder he is
> scared!
Um, just the opposite. I currently have three VoIP providers on my
cellphone as we speak. Skype for free outgoing calls, using Skype for
Windows Mobile, Freedigits.com for free incoming calls using Windows
Mobile 6's seamless integrated SIP client, and I also use Voicestick via
Cell-to-VoIP bridging for overseas calls (it's cheaper than Skype and has
no connection fees.)
> and an error...
>
> you said: plus a 4-cent connection fee <--
> when really it's connection fee rate 0.039 cent connection fee <--
Yeah, you got me- I rounded up 1/10 of a cent. I assume you pointed that
out because it was the only error you could find in my post.
If SkypeForIPhone is the best developers can do with Safari, someone
better wrap both hands around Jobs' black turtleneck and squeeze hard
until he agrees to release an SDK!
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Tinman 2007-08-17, 12:33 pm |
| "Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 16 Aug 2007 17:36:12 -0600 Oxford wrote:
>
>
> Because it's cheaper than a cellphone call it's ok to be gouged by this
> crappy workaround service?
Todd, don't bother trying to argue with this idiot. He displays no ability
to reason.
>
> Yeah, you got me- I rounded up 1/10 of a cent. I assume you pointed that
> out because it was the only error you could find in my post.
And then he pulls idiotic stunts like this.
>
> If SkypeForIPhone is the best developers can do with Safari, someone
> better wrap both hands around Jobs' black turtleneck and squeeze hard
> until he agrees to release an SDK!
Don't go by the Web app crap.
Believe it or not the number of native apps has been increasing daily--the
slow trickle is turning into a steady stream. Despite the lack of an SDK, I
have gotten my iPhone out of Steve's "jail" and have installed several
useful apps. The most useful, though, is Installer. This lets one easily
install apps--real apps, not Web apps--via WiFi or EDGE. Works *great* and
the list of apps available through it has been growing steadily.
I have installed an iPhone binkit, SSH, a nice voice recorder (that can
transfer memos to visual voicemail or email), several file browsers, several
terminal apps (let me access my iPhone--on the iPhone--via command line), a
screen shot utility, ebook reader, text adventure game engine, NES emulator
(that is updated daily--it is now quite playable indeed), and the native
game LightsOff.
As I type this I have two SSH sessions (into my iPhone via WiFi) open on my
PC. I can browser the entire phone's contents--and there is far more on the
iPhone, OS-wise, than I have ever seen on a mobile phone before. While not a
full version of OSX, 700 MB is still a lot for a mobile device. I can do
this from my PC without affecting the iPhone's operation (e.g., I can be
using the iPhone to make calls while using SCP to transfer files to and
fro).
So while I definitely want an SDK ASAP, the lack of it is not stopping
native development. The big issue of course is that it requires "hacking"
and that is not something many users will be comfortable doing.
--
Mike
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
>
> Todd, don't bother trying to argue with this smart guy. He displays no ability
> to reason.
yes, I'm just a bit too ahead of the curve for Todd to see what is
happening to his industry.
>
> And then he pulls idiotic stunts like this.
it's MUCH more than a 1/10th of a cent. Do the math. 4.00 Cents is a
long way from 0.039 Cents. Todd is extremely scared about the iPhone and
VoIP. You can see it in his posts, so let's all laugh together at Todd
and his future! BYE BYE "for pay" CELL PHONES!
>
> Don't go by the Web app crap.
Correct, this is just an example of what is to come. It's freaking Todd
out, which is quite funny, but I'd understand if your industry was about
to be wiped out by one single product, the iPhone.
> Believe it or not the number of native apps has been increasing daily--the
> slow trickle is turning into a steady stream. Despite the lack of an SDK, I
> have gotten my iPhone out of Steve's "jail" and have installed several
> useful apps. The most useful, though, is Installer. This lets one easily
> install apps--real apps, not Web apps--via WiFi or EDGE. Works *great* and
> the list of apps available through it has been growing steadily.
Correct, the number of iPhone apps is soaring, it will have more Apps
than MS Mobile by the end of 2008, Xcode ensures that.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/developertools/
> I have installed an iPhone binkit, SSH, a nice voice recorder (that can
> transfer memos to visual voicemail or email), several file browsers, several
> terminal apps (let me access my iPhone--on the iPhone--via command line), a
> screen shot utility, ebook reader, text adventure game engine, NES emulator
> (that is updated daily--it is now quite playable indeed), and the native
> game LightsOff.
>
> As I type this I have two SSH sessions (into my iPhone via WiFi) open on my
> PC. I can browser the entire phone's contents--and there is far more on the
> iPhone, OS-wise, than I have ever seen on a mobile phone before. While not a
> full version of OSX, 700 MB is still a lot for a mobile device. I can do
> this from my PC without affecting the iPhone's operation (e.g., I can be
> using the iPhone to make calls while using SCP to transfer files to and
> fro).
Yes, it's an exciting time to be developing for the iPhone, no other
phone will ever have the amount of features that the iPhone has out of
the box, much less the huge installed base of wealthy customers. The
iPhone has been a major success so far, and that will only increase as
more Apps are developed. The Blackberry has pretty much died because of
the iPhone, and it's only been 40 days! WOW!
> So while I definitely want an SDK ASAP, the lack of it is not stopping
> native development. The big issue of course is that it requires "hacking"
> and that is not something many users will be comfortable doing.
Yes, and that will change over time, many things are waiting on the big
daddy of development and that's Leopard which will come out in October.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/
Then you'll have full Exchange support, Widget Support, more native
access to the iPhone's API's etc.
Todd is totally unaware of what Apple has in store for completely
altering the Cell Phone industry as the WORLD knows it... Can you say
VoIP over iChat? Yes..... and then you say FREE phone calls world wide.
All the "legacy" cell phone and landline connections NO LONGER MATTER
ONCE Apple turns on this switch.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/ichat.html
1 Billion iPhones by 2017? All talking for free through any standard
802.11 connection? Yep! Totally possible, the infrastructure is already
there. But only Todd is in the way. Poor Todd, his past isn't his future.
-
| |
|
| On Aug 17, 1:39 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> "Tinman" <a...@for.it> wrote:
>
>
> yes, I'm just a bit too ahead of the curve for Todd to see what is
> happening to his industry.
>
>
>
>
> it's MUCH more than a 1/10th of a cent. Do the math. 4.00 Cents is a
> long way from 0.039 Cents.
it is, but skypeout fees are .039 Dollars, or ~4 cents, NOT .039
cents.
seems you're so far ahead of the curve you don't even use the service,
eh? :D
<snip>
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> Todd is totally unaware of what Apple has in store for completely
> altering the Cell Phone industry as the WORLD knows it... Can you say
> VoIP over iChat? Yes..... and then you say FREE phone calls world wide.
> All the "legacy" cell phone and landline connections NO LONGER MATTER
> ONCE Apple turns on this switch.
Skype? Yeah...riiiiiight.
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-kea...kype-outage.asp
August 16, 2007
Skype outage
Skype is experiencing a major outage.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| At 17 Aug 2007 09:12:18 -0700 Tinman wrote:
> Todd, don't bother trying to argue with this idiot. He displays no
ability
> to reason.
But it's such fun...
> Don't go by the Web app crap.
>
> Believe it or not the number of native apps has been increasing
daily--the
> slow trickle is turning into a steady stream. Despite the lack of
an SDK, I
> have gotten my iPhone out of Steve's "jail" and have installed
several
> useful apps. The most useful, though, is Installer. This lets one
easily
> install apps--real apps, not Web apps--via WiFi or EDGE. Works
*great* and
> the list of apps available through it has been growing steadily.
Cool. I guess this is why I'm stymied why Apple is trying to control
development. There are plenty of smart developers out there
determined to program this thing by trial and error if need be! If
there are going to be apps anyway, why not release an SDK|and insure
those apps do everything "properly."
> I have installed an iPhone binkit, SSH, a nice voice recorder (that
can
> transfer memos to visual voicemail or email), several file
browsers, several
> terminal apps (let me access my iPhone--on the iPhone--via command
line), a
> screen shot utility, ebook reader, text adventure game engine, NES
emulator
> (that is updated daily--it is now quite playable indeed), and the
native
> game LightsOff.
>
> As I type this I have two SSH sessions (into my iPhone via WiFi)
open on my
> PC. I can browser the entire phone's contents--and there is far
more on the
> iPhone, OS-wise, than I have ever seen on a mobile phone before.
While not a
> full version of OSX, 700 MB is still a lot for a mobile device. I
can do
> this from my PC without affecting the iPhone's operation (e.g., I
can be
> using the iPhone to make calls while using SCP to transfer files to
and
> fro).
Very cool.
> So while I definitely want an SDK ASAP, the lack of it is not
stopping
> native development. The big issue of course is that it requires
"hacking"
> and that is not something many users will be comfortable doing.
True, but again, if the lack of an SDK is supposedly to protect the
"stability" of the device, you'd think forcing smart people to
"guess" will lead to lot less staility than just releasing the "rule
book."
I had no idea all this was going on. Thanks for the heads up! I
might have to take another look at the iPhone...
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Bob Fry 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| >>>>> "Ox" == Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> writes:
Ox> it's MUCH more than a 1/10th of a cent. Do the math. 4.00
Ox> Cents is a long way from 0.039 Cents.
From http://www.skype.com/products/skypeout/:
Connection fee of 3.9¢ charged for each call
In other words, $0.039 USD per call.
You can't even get this basic fact correct.
--
From the moment I picked your book up until I put it down I was
convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.
Groucho Marx
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote:
> From http://www.skype.com/products/skypeout/:
> Connection fee of 3.9¢ charged for each call
>
> In other words, $0.039 USD per call.
>
> You can't even get this basic fact correct.
sorry Bob, but the article clearly stated:
$0.039 cents per connection.
here are the facts:
http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/0...s_live_ear.html
"Connection Fee. All Pro calls_charged $0.039_per call."
you and Mr. Allcock lose again.
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> it is, but skypeout fees are .039 Dollars, or ~4 cents, NOT .039
> cents.
>
> seems you're so far ahead of the curve you don't even use the service,
> eh? :D
Ed, too bad the facts get in the way:
Connection Fee. All Pro calls_charged $0.039_per call.
http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/0...s_live_ear.html
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesmacs-3319E2.17311417082007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> sorry Bob, but the article clearly stated:
>
> $0.039 cents per connection.
>
> here are the facts:
>
> http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/0...s_live_ear.html
>
> "Connection Fee. All Pro calls_charged $0.039_per call."
>
> you and Mr. Allcock lose again.
dude, you're an idiot.
The article said, as you quote: $0.039 per call.
You, on the other hand, said $0.039 cents per connection. You are the
only person or entity anywhere to use the figure "$0.039 cents".
Now, there is no such figure as "$0.039 cents". It's either 3.9 cents,
or it's $0.039--which are the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, you moron.
You have absolutely NO idea how money works. It's amazing you manage to
PAY your phone bill every month.
Now, tell us all: what does "$0.039 cents" mean, and how does that
relate to the ACTUAL article and its phrasing of "$0.039"?
Please keep your answer to words of three syllables or fewer. Two pages
maximum. Proof your work before you turn it in.
Then go XXXX yourself.
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> Cool. I guess this is why I'm stymied why Apple is trying to control
> development. There are plenty of smart developers out there
> determined to program this thing by trial and error if need be! If
> there are going to be apps anyway, why not release an SDK|and insure
> those apps do everything "properly."
because they know they will release a VoIP iChat client rendering all
other "attempts" useless. You don't understand Apple, that is clear.
> True, but again, if the lack of an SDK is supposedly to protect the
> "stability" of the device, you'd think forcing smart people to
> "guess" will lead to lot less staility than just releasing the "rule
> book."
yes, but it generally means Apple isn't ready to take a chance on a
developer screwing something up, or even more serious, a competitor
purposely mucking things up since they are scared of the iPhone.
> I had no idea all this was going on. Thanks for the heads up! I
> might have to take another look at the iPhone...
yes, the iPhone will be the primary cell / voip phone in the years to
come. Apple should have 30% of the cell / voip phone market within 3
years.
pretty cool if you want the best phone for the least cost on the market.
| |
|
| On Aug 17, 4:32 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ed, too bad the facts get in the way:
>
> Connection Fee. All Pro calls charged $0.039 per call.
>
> http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/0...s_live_ear.html
wow, oxford, wow- see that sign in from of the 0.039 above?- that's a
DOLLAR sign, not a CENT sign, so it's AS I STATED- .039 DOLLAR fee per
call, which is about 4 CENTS.
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> wow, oxford, wow- see that sign in from of the 0.039 above?- that's a
> DOLLAR sign, not a CENT sign, so it's AS I STATED- .039 DOLLAR fee per
> call, which is about 4 CENTS.
it's not that high, when you get your bill, you'll see.
plus that's only for "legacy" cell or landline", basically no fee for
voip to voip. Todd is screwed, it's quite clear.
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> dude, you're an idiot.
>
> The article said, as you quote: $0.039 per call.
>
> You, on the other hand, said $0.039 cents per connection. You are the
> only person or entity anywhere to use the figure "$0.039 cents".
>
> Now, there is no such figure as "$0.039 cents". It's either 3.9 cents,
> or it's $0.039--which are the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, you moron.
>
> You have absolutely NO idea how money works. It's amazing you manage to
> PAY your phone bill every month.
>
> Now, tell us all: what does "$0.039 cents" mean, and how does that
> relate to the ACTUAL article and its phrasing of "$0.039"?
>
> Please keep your answer to words of three syllables or fewer. Two pages
> maximum. Proof your work before you turn it in.
>
> Then go XXXX yourself.
learn how the billing works, you are posting non-sense.
grow up!
| |
|
| On Aug 17, 4:47 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> it's not that high, when you get your bill, you'll see.
actually, it is.
> plus that's only for "legacy" cell or landline", basically no fee for
> voip to voip.
which is exactly what this service you posted a link for does.
| |
| Alan Baker 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesmacs-3319E2.17311417082007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
> sorry Bob, but the article clearly stated:
>
> $0.039 cents per connection.
>
> here are the facts:
>
> http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/0...s_live_ear.html
>
> "Connection Fee. All Pro calls_charged $0.039_per call."
$0.039 = 3.9¢, Oxford. If you saw the price of something written as
$39.00, that would be thirty nine dollars, right?
So $3.90 is three dollars ninety cents.
$0.39 is thirty nine cents.
So, $0.039 is...
>
> you and Mr. Allcock lose again.
Ummm...
....no.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
| |
| Tim Murray 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| On Aug 17, 2007, Oxford wrote:
> $0.039 cents per connection.
OfficeDigits has that a similar typo <http://www.officedigits.com/>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| At 17 Aug 2007 17:47:05 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> plus that's only for "legacy" cell or landline", basically no fee
> for voip to voip.
Except you can't call VoIP-to-VoIP (at least as of yet) on an iPhone.
SkypeForIPhone is a clumsy callback service that connects two
separate calls- their server to your iPhone on your AT&T service,
which costs you the connection fee, and their server to your
destination, ensuring that you get charged even for a (usually) free
Skype-to-Skype call.
> Todd is screwed, it's quite clear.
Um, not really, because I CAN call VoIP-to-VoIP on my WinMo phone and
completely bypass both my cellular service, and any Skype fees should
I choose to.
You obviously haven't used SkypeForIPhone.com's service, and
certainly don't understand it.
"Ahead of the curve?" You don't even know when you've fallen off of
it!
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| At 17 Aug 2007 17:38:04 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> because they know they will release a VoIP iChat client rendering
> all other "attempts" useless. You don't understand Apple, that is
clear.
Better than you seem to understand math, sweetheart..
> yes, the iPhone will be the primary cell / voip phone in the years
> to come. Apple should have 30% of the cell / voip phone market
within
> 3 years.
So, just out of curiosity, what color is the sky on your planet, Oxy?
> pretty cool if you want the best phone for the least cost on the
> market.
Least cost? Oh, yeah- it's the decimal thing again. The iPhone is
$499, Ox, not $4.99. Glad to clear that up for you!
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| At 17 Aug 2007 16:42:07 -0700 ed wrote:
> wow, oxford, wow- see that sign in from of the 0.039 above?-
> that's a DOLLAR sign, not a CENT sign, so it's AS I STATED- .039
DOLLAR
> fee per call, which is about 4 CENTS.
Don't bother- you'll just confuse him- he's "ahead of the curve..."
...about two decimal points ahead... ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-08-18, 7:33 am |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
> sorry Bob, but the article clearly stated:
>
> $0.039 cents per connection.
>
> here are the facts:
>
> http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/0...s_live_ear.html
>
> "Connection Fee. All Pro calls charged $0.039 per call."
Any five year old starting school will tell you $0.039 = 3.9 cents.
> you and Mr. Allcock lose again.
Give it up Oxford. In your haste to score a debating point to sidetrack
the discussion,
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~
o~o~
Message-ID:
<colalovesmacs-78CEF1.17361216082007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>
"and an error...
you said: plus a 4-cent connection fee <--
when really it's connection fee rate 0.039 cent connection fee <--"
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~
o~o~
you blundered, misreading "Connection Fee. All Pro calls charged
$0.039 per call" as "Connection Fee. All Pro calls charged $0.039 cents
per call."
A simple mistake to make. Of course, everyone else thought you were
getting picky over 0.01 cent, but no, you actually believe each call
incurs 0.039 cents connection charge, in other words, 25 calls incur
about 1c to connect. Is this realistic?
When working on complicated numerical manipulations, most people do a
"sanity check"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanity_test
Fess up and move on. When in a hole, stop digging...
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
|
|
| Oxford 2007-08-18, 10:33 pm |
| notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Give it up Oxford. In your haste to score a debating point to sidetrack
> the discussion,
>
> o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~
o~o~
>
> Message-ID:
> <colalovesmacs-78CEF1.17361216082007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>
>
> "and an error...
>
> you said: plus a 4-cent connection fee <--
> when really it's connection fee rate 0.039 cent connection fee <--"
>
> o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~
o~o~
>
> you blundered, misreading "Connection Fee. All Pro calls charged
> $0.039 per call" as "Connection Fee. All Pro calls charged $0.039 cents
> per call."
>
> A simple mistake to make. Of course, everyone else thought you were
> getting picky over 0.01 cent, but no, you actually believe each call
> incurs 0.039 cents connection charge, in other words, 25 calls incur
> about 1c to connect. Is this realistic?
it's still far cheaper than what Cell Phone companies charge, Skype (and
other VoIP companies that come after) will wipe the slate clean of the
greedy Cell Vendors. Their game is almost over, Skype on the iPhone is
MUCH cheaper than the cheapest AT&T plan. That's the bottom line.
Once Apple releases VoIP iChat, bye bye AT&T except unless you are WAY
out of range of a normal 802.11 access point.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> it's still far cheaper than what Cell Phone companies charge, Skype (and
> other VoIP companies that come after) will wipe the slate clean of the
> greedy Cell Vendors. Their game is almost over, Skype on the iPhone is
> MUCH cheaper than the cheapest AT&T plan. That's the bottom line.
Ref: "Cheapest AT&T plan"...are you referring to traditional long distance
dialing from a land line?
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-18, 10:33 pm |
| DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>
>
> Ref: "Cheapest AT&T plan"...are you referring to traditional long distance
> dialing from a land line?
no, cheapest iphone plan $59.99 + $10ish in silly fees. (450 rollover
minutes)
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-18, 10:33 pm |
| At 18 Aug 2007 14:33:19 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> it's still far cheaper than what Cell Phone companies charge, Skype
(and
> other VoIP companies that come after) will wipe the slate clean of
the
> greedy Cell Vendors.
Then why haven't they done it yet? Dedicated Skype wi-fi phones have
been on the market for a few years. What, you're behind THAT curve?
The problem, obviously, is that ubiquitous wi-fi simply doesn't
exist. Ubiquitous wireless phone service does. Until that changes,
and, just as importantly, until VoIP calls can handle handoffs
between different Wi-Fi networks, Skype and VoIP will only be a
substitute for cordless landline phones, not mobile ones.
> Their game is almost over, Skype on the iPhone is
> MUCH cheaper than the cheapest AT&T plan. That's the bottom line.
No, the bottom line, that you seem unwilling or unable to believe is
that Skype on the iPhone REQUIRES an AT&T plan. It's not true VoIP,
but a callback service that connects the iPhone to a VoIP network
over a cellular call, and thus is only useful for lowering the cost
of international calls, or as a method to call other Skype contacts.
Not to beat a dead horse, but again, Mobivox does the same thing more
inexpensively.
> Once Apple releases VoIP iChat, bye bye AT&T except unless you are
WAY
> out of range of a normal 802.11 access point.
"WAY out of range"? Even a little out of range will terminate a VoIP
call. Walking down the street where your phone hops to your
neighbor's open AP instead of yours will terminate a VoIP call.
As I said, it'll replace a cordless phone- not a mobile. Unless you
make all of your mobile calls from the same network. (Which,
frankly, isn't very "mobile".)
If you want "ahead of the curve" look at T-Mobile's UMA service. It
allows you to connect mobile calls over wi-fi instead of their GSM
network. It's not VoIP- it actually sends the same digital voice
packets you'd normally send to the tower over the internet. This
way, you could be in Paris, France and make or take a T-Mo call for
free, instead of the $1.49/minute international roaming charge as
long as the phone has access to wi-fi. Or, drop to the lowest rate
plan they offer and make free wi-fi calls. (In fact, they count the
call as free as long as it starts on wi-fi- you can dial at home on
wi-fi, jump in your car and drive off- the call seamlessly switches
to cellular and the call stays free for it's duration.)
THAT's how to leverage wi-fi to reduce cellular costs- augment
cellular with wi-fi- not pretend wi-fi is ubiquitous enough to
challenge cellular directly.
Of course, UMA threatens landline revenues, so I don't expect to see
AT&T offering it anytime soon.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Bob Fry 2007-08-19, 4:33 am |
| >>>>> "Ox" == Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> writes:
Ox> it's still far cheaper than what Cell Phone companies charge,
Ox> Skype (and other VoIP companies that come after) will wipe the
Ox> slate clean of the greedy Cell Vendors.
Cheaper than what? Many cell phone plans offer free long distance as
part of their packages, and that's cell phone to any phone (in the
USA), which is cheaper than Skype.
You're confused. Skype is in the long-distance market. Cell phones
are in the "last-mile" market. Very different markets.
--
Why do people in ship mutinies always ask for "better treatment"?
I'd ask for a pinball machine, because with all that rocking back
and forth you'd probably be able to get a lot of free games.
- Jack Handey
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-19, 4:33 am |
| Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Cheaper than what? Many cell phone plans offer free long distance as
> part of their packages, and that's cell phone to any phone (in the
> USA), which is cheaper than Skype.
no bob. skype to skype is free, you are talking about skype going to a
landline or cell phone... but i can talk to anyone in the world on my
powerbook, to another powerbook, (whatever your flavor) for free. it's
like a free world wide walkie-talkie.
> You're confused. Skype is in the long-distance market. Cell phones
> are in the "last-mile" market. Very different markets.
so skype doesn't work with my neighbor across the street?
bob, you're an idoit.
cell phones are set up on an expensive, "dated" infrastructure, and they
have to lie / cheat their customers to stay in business. 802.11 wipes
them out. you'll see...
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/ichat.html
http://www.skype.com/
Jajah for iPhone
http://snipurl.com/1po8x
Skype for iPhone
http://skypeforiphone.com/
bob, face the music, you are terrified of what i'm saying.
read this:
http://snipurl.com/1po8u
the Cell World is going to die! Just a matter of time...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-19, 4:33 am |
| At 18 Aug 2007 22:59:54 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> no bob. skype to skype is free, you are talking about skype going
to a=20
> landline or cell phone...=20
IF your device has a Skype client or you use Mobivox. Again, Skype
to Skype isn't free on SkypeForiPhone, because the iPhone can't
connect to Skype except via cellular, and the service uses YOUR Skype
credits to connect from their service to your iPhone. (A Skype-to-
mobile call.)
> but i can talk to anyone in the world on my=20
> powerbook, to another powerbook, (whatever your flavor) for free.
No one is arguing with that. Most people, however, want a smaller
phone, not a laptop-sized one.
> it's=20
> like a free world wide walkie-talkie.
Yeah, we all know about VoIP- like most things you tout, it's not
exactly new.
=20
> so skype doesn't work with my neighbor across the street?=20
>=20
> bob, you're an idoit.
As always, you miss the point. Of course Skype can call across the
street. The point is that it's usually redundant to use it for that,
since most people today have cellphones with free domestic long
distance and a large bucket of minutes (plus free nights, weekends,
etc.) So generally, Skype is used, at least on a (compatible)
cellphone, to get around cell providers' ridiculous international LD
rates. =20
> cell phones are set up on an expensive, "dated" infrastructure, and
they=20
> have to lie / cheat their customers to stay in business. 802.11
wipes=20
> them out. you'll see...
>=20
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/ichat.html
Did I miss the part of that link that says 'coming soon for iPhone?'
=20
> http://www.skype.com/
We've already covered this- requires cellular minutes on the iPhone.=20
Try to keep up.=20
> Jajah for iPhone
>=20
> http://snipurl.com/1po8x
From that link:
"You will of course use your bucket of voice minutes in your AT&T plan=
,
but hey, it's free calls anywhere in the world damn it, so quit your
complaining!"
So, again, it hardly _replaces_ your cell service, if your cell
service is REQUIRED to use it does it?=20
=20
> Skype for iPhone
>=20
> http://skypeforiphone.com/
Do I have to explain how that lousy service works again?
Like Jajah, it hardly replaces your cell service, does it?=20
> bob, face the music, you are terrified of what i'm saying.
>=20
> read this:
>=20
> http://snipurl.com/1po8u
>=20
> the Cell World is going to die! Just a matter of time...
Obviously you read my last post then- you just linked an article
describing T-Mobile's UMA service I described earlier. But again you
missed the point- rather than being "proof" that cellular "is going
to die," the article makes my point that an incumbent industry can
adapt new technologies to their business rather than be destroyed by
them. =20
For example, cellular has slowly been stealing business from landlines=
,
but so what? Most cellcos are owned by the elcos. The left pocket
is taking money from the right. Or, like AT&T, they can bundle wire
and wireless with "unity plans."
What do you do when VoIP starts eroding telephone profits? Leverage
internet service. I get landline and DSL combined from my Telco
cheaper than internet alone from my cable co. So even "free" VoIP
(for landline replacement) is a money loser for me- I just use VoIP
and/or my cell for cheap/free LD, and my Telco happily takes my
$30/month DSL fees instead of the $20 in LD fees I used to spend
monthly.
T-Mobile has taken the VoIP idea and pushed it to the next level-
rather than mess with juggling VoIP at home and cellular when mobile,
one phone works SEAMLESSLY across the GSM network and wi-fi, with the
same phone, same phone number, and no flaky VoIP software client, or
VoIP hardware to mess around with.
As the article you linked says: "...it=92s absolutely ingenious. It
could save you hundreds or thousands of dollars a year, and yet
enrich T-Mobile at the same time. In the cellphone world, win-win
plays like that are extremely rare."
As I've said to you before- don't think VoIP will kill the cellphone
industry- they'll find a way to adopt it, adapt it, co-opt it or
improve it.
T-Mo did just that with it's UMA "Hotspot @ Home" service- provided
an excellent consumer value, addressed a common problem for cellular
(crummy reception at home/indoors) and beat the VoIP providers at
their own game.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures=20
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for=20
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with=20
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003=20
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> the Cell World is going to die! Just a matter of time...
What's going to replace cellular technology?
WiFi?
I think not...
From http://www. fiercebroadbandwirel
ess.com/
Google had big hopes in 2005 and 2006 that muni-WiFi was going to be the
wireless broadband opportunity it was looking for. Pundits had speculated
that Google was poised to blanket the U.S. with free WiFi in order to
become one of the globe's largest Internet providers and one of the
powerful ad sellers. That strategy hasn't panned out as the muni-WiFi
market has hit a shakeout. As it turns out, muni-WiFi is difficult--in a
technological, fiscal and operational sense. Google's plan to unwire San
Francisco doesn't look like it will come to fruition as its partner
EarthLink will likely pull out of the deal. And players everywhere are
determining that there isn't much of a business case around simply offering
WiFi access to the masses.
Public access: "Weak" reason for muni-WiFi?
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story...wifi/2007-01-23
Muni-WiFi analyst Craig Settles has released a report claiming that public
access, or bridging the digital divide, will be "widely viewed as the
weakest financial pillar in the business case for municipal wireless" by
the end of this year. Mobile workforce applications will be muni-WiFi's
biggest ROI generator, according to Settles. While the prediction reads
like an obvious point, Settles is dismantling the political rhetoric that
seems to precede the launch of most muni-WiFi services in the U.S. Recent
tests of the muni-WiFi launches in Milipitas, CA, and Mountain View, CA
show how limited a $20 per month muni-WiFi service will be for some folks.
What's more, it usually only works outside.
| |
| Steve de Mena 2007-08-20, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford wrote:
> Once Apple releases VoIP iChat, bye bye AT&T except unless you are WAY
> out of range of a normal 802.11 access point.
Uh, thats virtually 100% of the time I am outside.
Steve
| |
| Steve de Mena 2007-08-20, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford wrote:
> DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
>
>
> no, cheapest iphone plan $59.99 + $10ish in silly fees. (450 rollover
> minutes)
If I am home, where 802.11b is, I can use a land line, so he price
comparison should be between Skype and a land line.
Steve
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-20, 10:33 pm |
| DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
> What's going to replace cellular technology?
>
> WiFi?
>
> I think not...
they said the same thing about ethernet.
:)
and 802.11 is simply wireless "ethernet".
good luck cell companies... you are going to need it!
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-08-20, 10:33 pm |
| Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
> If I am home, where 802.11b is, I can use a land line, so he price
> comparison should be between Skype and a land line.
you can get rid of your landline and use dsl "without" a phone line
charge (believe it or not in modern areas)
so you'd just use your iphone as a landline through dsl.
sweet.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
>
>
> they said the same thing about ethernet.
What did the infamous society of They say about ethernet?
> and 802.11 is simply wireless "ethernet".
"SIMPLY"???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>
> you can get rid of your landline and use dsl "without" a phone line
> charge (believe it or not in modern areas)
Old news...several telcos offer a "dry" DSL line. But that not always
literally true. Some telcos will still provide you with a talk battery (a
"wet" line) that can only dial 91.
> so you'd just use your iphone as a landline through dsl.
With the exception of Mother's Day, telco based long distance has the
closet thing to 100% Quality of Service. It has no echo problems, no
latency, no packet sniffing security issues.
VoIP has none of that.
With the exception of AT&T Long Lines going down for a few hours about
fifteen years ago after a system upgrade, its been running 100% reliability
for many years before and after that occurance.
VoIP cannot compare, i.e. the big Skype outage a last week.
| |
| Steve de Mena 2007-08-21, 4:33 am |
| Oxford wrote:
> Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>
> you can get rid of your landline and use dsl "without" a phone line
> charge (believe it or not in modern areas)
>
> so you'd just use your iphone as a landline through dsl.
>
> sweet.
Yes, I know people who have dumped their land lines. I have had mine
forward to my cell phone for a few years now. I mainly use it for
outgoing calls that will be long, such as work conference calls, where
I can put it on speakerphone and not worry about a battery dying out.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|