Skype 2.0 Adds Video

Golygydd Max writes "Skype is showing that there's life after the eBay purchase. Techworld reports that the company has just launched the beta of Skype 2.0, having added video to its telecommunication software. The company is already lagging behind the likes of AOL and MSN in offering this, but Skype must be hoping that the size of its user base will help it - its store is to start selling videocams almost immediately." The LA Times has a review from a 2.0 beta tester, if you're interested in a hands-on look.

I love Skype

[tsa]

I live in Holland and I have a friend in Australia. I talk to him a lot via Skype. The sound quality is even better than with telephone, and it's a lot cheaper! Video will add a nice new dimension to the experience!

BTW, FP!

Re:Large user base?

[aussie_a]

I can honestly say I don't know a single person that uses MSN or ICQ (I know a few who used to use ICQ a few years ago). But I know at least 30 people who use Skype almost every day.

Yes, but I'd hardly consider the slashdot userbase (or their friends) a good sample of the internet population. Many slashdotters (no idea if you're one) zealously hate Microsoft and all of it's products. So it wouldn't be surprising to see them not using msn. However I'd hardly say that's indicative of internet users at large.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[ady1]

actually its not. skype is one of its kind which uses p2p and has encrypted communication

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[D-Cypell]

Isnt this always the way. Some pioneering company releases a technology that is far ahead of it's time but the hardware just isnt their to support it. A few years latter the technology reappears on a platform that is ready to support the concept. I can think of at least 10 or 20 examples of this. Makes you feel a bit sorry for the pioneers.

Expect a massive VR resurrgance in a few years time.

its too much generalization

[ady1]

As I Live in an underdeveloped county and have relatives abroad so I know that a very good portion of the video conferencing is used by parted families

Been done before?

[XMilkProject]

Alot of posts mention that this isn't exactly a new technology. Well of course that is true, people have been successfully using video chat for years, but I think what is important is that Skype makes this process simple and more accessible to the masses.

Of course MacOsX has some very easy to use video chat abilities, but Skype takes this even further by providing SDK/API for developers to build off of their technology.

Personally I'll most likely keep using other software packages, but I am very happy to see this technology becoming more mainstream, it is likely to help save people (and perhaps businesses) alot of time and money as these things work better and cost less.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[JPriest]

Plenty of IM clients have supported audio too but until Skype nobody ever really used it.

Re:Demand for the video phone?

[sbryant]

You don't have kids, do you? If you don't live so close to your parents, you'll find yourself the "videophone" so they can see their grandchildren. Then, once you have it anyway, it's nice to be able to see friends and relatives. Usage depends on how good (smooth) the implementation is. It's not a must-have, but it does grow on you.

I've been using the free video plugin for Skype for quite a while now. It wasn't bad, but it did go a little weird every now and then (lost the camera etc). I'm hoping that the integrated version will be better.

-- Steve

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[cybrthng]

People don't care how it works, just that it works. CUseeme used reflectors, broadcasting and other trickery to allow it to work fairly well on the technology we had back then.

I'm more sarcastic in the views of video over phone or net as it isn't worth it, been done before and the transport method - in this case p2p isn't revolutionary anymore. I could link up multiple reflectors and broadcast my cuseeme nearly 10 years ago. THe actual quality of the video hasn't changed worth squat in all reality since the network and technology of brandband used today still sucks as bad as it did then. (upload/outbound performance)

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[Taladar]

You forgot "...with an annoying name like Skype or Blog or Podcast..." in the "years later" part of your sentence.

Body language

[CrazedWalrus]

I think there's a lot to be said for being able to see facial expressions when speaking with someone, and it also adds visual cues that can help if someone has a heavy accent.

Also, I generally work in large multinational corporations, and it would be nice to know what the person on the other end of the line looks like. I think visual helps build relationships because it makes the other person seem more human.

At my last job, we used to hold occasional team meetings in a video conference room, which everyone enjoyed (when the farking thing worked right). Sometimes it's nice to hear a smile *and* see it.

Re:Wow.. this is so like.. 1997

[sammy baby]

Wow. You have a very different memory of 1997 than I do.

In my world, current video communication systems that work over the public internet are superior by orders of magnitude to their ancestors in terms of signal quality. That's in large measure due to the better availability of bandwidth across the board (and yes: contrary to your assertion, even upstream connectivity is faster than it was back then, unless you want to compare an upstream speed of, say, 385 kbps to your old 56K. modem.)

I'm not a video expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I was peripherally involved in testing and evaluating video-via-network between 1997 and June of this year. In '97 we were swearing at CUSeeMe; in 2000, we were experimenting with video over ATM; by 2005 we were using everything from NetMeeting to dedicated Polycom systems with auto tracking cameras. Trust me, it's better now.

Re:Whilst I welcome the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how good iChat is it doesn't stand a chance unless it is cross platform or Windows based AND free to those platforms. Technical superiority is all well and good, but if you need an entirely different class of machine to use the program it is worthless to the vast majority of people. This is where Skype is getting it right (or at least trying to). They have a product that works on several platforms and is easy to use.