Jump to content

Talk:Skype/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Skype

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 120.16.10.92 (talk) at 11:07, 4 January 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Maintained

Pictures again

So it's great that all of the ports have their own picture now, but there should be a prominently displayed picture of the standard program in action, such as the one on the Windows Live Messenger page. Such a picture is extremely helpful in conveying what Skype is like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Service or software

The first sentence says skype is a software, the second sentence refers to it as being a service. Presumably it's both. This should be made clear. For example, can one use skype's service through other software? (like how one can use the msn messenger service without using the software called "MSN messenger") And can one use the skype software with another provider? RobHar (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Skype's service can only be used through the Skype software - similarly, the Skype software only works with the Skype service. So I guess it is both software and a service, although you can't really have one without the other. ~~ [Jam][talk] 19:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I don't think it's fair that there are two pictures of Windows, XP & Vista, and no picture of Skype on Apple's OS X. I think the order of the images needs to be reconsidered and the XP image needs to be removed. Also is the picture of Windows Mobile necessary? This page can get out of hand with the number of platforms that Skype runs on. I think one pic per platform should be sufficient. --Kibbled bits (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a Mac OS X image. Also, I think that the images would look more organized if they were inside a gallery. -- CFeyecare Talk! 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I created a gallery in my sandbox. (see: User:CFeyecare/sandbox)-- CFeyecare Talk! 03:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Good job, it looks better now. --Kibbled bits (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, consider adding this screenshot instead of the utterly obsolete Skype 1.4 for Linux: http://pic.madfire.net/s/Skype_2.1.0.47_beta_for_Linux.png Berkus (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Security features

I feel that the security features heading on the skype page is somewhat biased or at least swayed towards the idea of open source. The section quotes a cryptographer on how open source development is important to security, but provides minimal discourse related specifically to skype. If there are legitimate concerns, for example the testimony of someone on how skype should be open source, I think that would apply more. For now however, I think it really gives off the message of being very one-sided and too much of a "plug" for open source software. --Spfmalloy (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Openly peer reviewed is and always has been an important characteristic for security. This is a consistent position of experts in this field, the cited one, being simply an example. The article just points out that skype has this acknowledged security weakness. Rearden9 (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against the idea of open source security, what I'm pointing out is that the quote and the general feel of the writing is very negative. The point made by the quoted may be true but is not specifically relevant to skype, and would fit much more in an article on open source crytography, not in the security section of the skype page. As an example...
...and therefore cannot be inspected by the general public - including many security specialists - for back doors that can be exploited by hackers or government agents...
This section gives the attitude of arguing for the release of the of the code, as it attempts to re-explain to readers that the general public includes "security specialists." There is more space dedicated to this explanation to the idea of open source security on the skype page than there is on the linked skype security page. --Spfmalloy (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The summary is negative because the opinions of security professionals on Skype's security are generally negative. Therefore, it accurately reflects the position of experts and should not be changed, surely? Indeed, since it has since been revealed that Skype admits to having a backdoor in its encryption framework - intended for law enforcement agencies - it is clear that the concerns are justified. 129.215.31.225 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Service issues

Under the heading Skype Service Issues: "While available for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux (i386 platform) operating systems, there is no Skype version for the Palm OS, used in mobile devices like the Treo 700p smartphone." Is this really a service issue? Should Skype have to support Palm OS? Why not mention all the other operating systems it doesnt provide version for? Aawood (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fail to provide customer support; fail to provide services for paid customers; fail to refund incorrect charges; also blocking paid customers without refunding or explanation. Many cases can be found in refs given in this section. The text covers a very concise description of issues. It's fair to mention the issues in this way, until we have more publicized cases up.

I agree that lacking of client software features should be in other sections.--Natasha2006 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

German wiretapping via trojan horses

I just added this to the article:

It has been reported that German authorities have been wiretapping Skype conversations using a trojan horse.<ref>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080918/0208152302.shtml</ref> A number of individuals involved in publicly disclosing this information have been placed under investigation.<ref>[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080918/0208152302.shtml]<ref>

It is based on this link here:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080918/0208152302.shtml

More information here including details and costs of the wiretapping software used:

http://www.itexaminer.com/german-pirate-party-raided.aspx
Digitask charges €3,500 a month for running its Skype capture software, and an additional €2,500 for SSL-decoding services. The installation fee is a further €2500.

--John Bahrain (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/images/5/54/Bayern-skype-tkue.pdf as a source! It is the document in question. Somehow I do not find out, how to create the quotation link myself.... Regarding the content of this document: there is no sign whatsoever that Skype carries any responsibility for this wiretapping incident. Rather a 3rd-party was ordered to deliver a software which can capture the live voice stream before skype can get hold of it and encrypt it, because the skype-encryption is quite good. (too good writes the coder of the trojan) In this document the company that coded the software, to chatch the streams unencrypted on the PC of the tapped person, is makeing the priced offer. the first part of the document is discussing internally how to distribute the costs of this trojan amongst police and district attorney's office. This case is IMHO not a security issue concerning Skype. It could concern just about any software that encrypts user data for transmission over internet. The company is making the offer to decrypt any firefox and internet explorer transmissions (SSL) as well in the last part of this document. It is rather a legal/political problem of Bavarian police, Germany. Looks like these practices have become legal in Bavaria in 2008 but are still under discussion --Manorainjan (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New system requirements for Macs include a G4 processor

The new video Skype, at least 2.7, to my surprise, states (in tiny print) that your Mac requires a G4 processor. Overlooking this can leave one with no Skype service at all, for Skype does not provide earlier versions. This is important to know, because a G3 processor has always been adequate for audio calls (and, in my opinion, for nice full-screen video as well.) Hence, it was unexpected. This new requirement will seriously catch off guard those who do not backup applications or downloaded disk images, those who erase (immediately) with icons, and those who read as poorly as i. It should probably be mentioned. Geologist (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the Skype program check the system requirements before it installs/upgrades the existing version? ~~ [ジャム][talk] 07:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No. Ironically, if G3 users move to Skype's download section, or even click 'Manual 'Update' on a previously working version, a web page opens with a big green 'Download' button. The only warning at all appears at the bottom of this initial web page, after scrolling to the bottom; and it appears not as a caution, but hidden in small, light-grey, system requirements. (I actually read them and didn't see the 'G4' rather than 'G3'.
However, the 'Automatic Update' appears to not install v. 2.7; and, of course, I expected to read the installation instructions after downloading the disc image. The instructions are only on a web page that appears during the download: there is no README, change log, or any indication all is not fine during the install. Only when it failed to start, did I check my console messages and discover the truth.
This is not a problem with me, for I have a backup of the older disc image. The new extreme encryption of video may require a vector processor. However, my wife would never let me use video from such an untidy study. Videophones failed years ago in the U.S. for this reason. Geologist (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A moment ago I took a look at some discussion sites and concluded the above problem has been around for some time and isn't going away. Consequently, someone who writes well may wish to added the G3 problem to the article and reference the following website, which has archived seemingly all the previous Skype versions:

http://mac.oldapps.com/skype.php

Geologist (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Article seems unbalanced

Why is a single paper given a massive section? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention of new term?

Should a mention be made of the now-used term "Skypersation"? It seems to be used a good bit to denote conversations or video conferences in Skype.

Sounds like a neologism - has it been mention in multiple reliable sources? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the definition you linked to, I have to admit that you are correct. It hasn't been mentioned in reliable sources as of yet, just in colloquial speech. At least, as far as I'm aware. Kumorifox (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
no problem - keep an eye on it - once it gets a few mentions, slot it in :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Skype Pro

Why is there no mention of the "flagship" "Skype Pro" "subscription"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.56.24 (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Program versions in the article's infobox are screwed up. Someone should look into it. I have no experience with them whatsoever so chose not to try tinker with it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taalen (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Skype software issues

I would like to add to the article some important issues with current Skype software that I don't see mentioned, but have relevant citations for:

  • the Firefox/Internet Explorer plug-ins that are installed by default, and disfigure the user's web-pages by converting all phone numbers on the page to Skype buttons
  • the current forced upgrade system - when a new stable Skype version is released, V3+ Skype ceases to function
  • most commented on - Skype V3+ software continunally rechecks the check-boxes for 'Start Skype when Windows starts' and 'Sign me in when Skype starts', necessitating the user to uncheck these boxes each time they use the software, if they do not want to use these options
  • the Skype protocol includes a form of peer-to-peer functionality that means that any user can find themselves being used as a supernode, with serious bandwidth implications for their network
  • Skype bypasses firewalls and NAT systems, a cause for security concerns

Does anyone have any views on these? Centrepull (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Austrian interception of Skype

Since there appears to be some disagreement over my changes regarding austrian officials stating that they can easily listen to skype communication, I think we should discuss the issue here before making anymore edits. My case is this

1. the ohm online source (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/skype_backdoor_rumours) while using information from the heise-online source (http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/Speculation-over-back-door-in-Skype--/111170) adds additional analysis, commentary and quotes not contained in the heise-online source. They should both be included.

2. Yes they have the word rumor and speculation in the url but the story itself doesn't not claim these are just rumors and speculations, for instance:

"This has been confirmed to heise online by a number of the parties present at the meeting. "

"Last week, Austrian broadcaster ORF, citing minutes from the meeting, reported that the Austrian police are able to listen in on Skype connections."

Citing minutes and multiple sources is not rumor or speculation.

3. The way the article is currently worded "Several media sources have reported rumours that at a meeting about the interception of IP based services held on 25th June 2008," it sounds as though the meeting is rumored. The meeting has be confirmed by Interior ministry spokesman Rudolf Gollia, and european media.

I would prefer "Several media sources have reported that at a meeting on the Lawful interception of IP based services held on 25th June 2008, in which it is rumored that .."

"Interior ministry spokesman Rudolf Gollia declined to provide heise online with a comment on the matter. He did, however, offer general comments on the meeting, which were, however, contradicted by other attendees."

4. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/skype_backdoor_rumours/ the register makes reference to a wikileaks document showing the German government purchasing equipment to intercept Skype conversations. The register source should be included because it includes this additional information and analysis.

5. I agree with the removal of the skype privacy agreement sentience I added, since I was doing original research and citing a primary source. Someone should find a better analysis for this, since it is extremely important to the article to explain that Skype claims the legal power to spy(I need a more NPOV word for this) on it's customers if asked to by the government, for marketing reasons, or to protect their interests. Businesses should be aware that Skype reserves the right to listen to their Skype communications to protect Skypes/eBay's interests (seems very conflict of interest and very important to someone who is making the business decision to use Skype) and this extremely relevant to the question of weither Skype spies on it's customers. http://www.skype.com/legal/privacy/general/#4

Ethyr (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If no one is willing to defend the edits they made to remove my edits, I will restore them in two days. Ethyr (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all speculation - you have a single source and then bits and bobs built upon that in other sources. Commentary isn't fact. We've mentioned the speculation in the article - anything else would be WP:UNDUE - unless you can provide better more specific sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
"Last week, Austrian broadcaster ORF, citing minutes from the meeting, reported that the Austrian police are able to listen in on Skype connections."
Heise online is a well respected news source that is reporting on reputable foreign language news sources, one of which has ironclad evidence. Tt should carry weight. ORF is not some crackpot blog, it is "the dominant player in the Austrian broadcast media" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORF . ORF is citing minutes from the meeting. It's not hearsay, it's written minutes of the meeting. This is not a rumour, this is not speculation. "Meeting minutes have been accorded significant evidentiary weight by many courts and government agencies. " -http://www.aaronline.com/documents/LegReqMtngMin.aspx . Justify your claim that this is "a rumor" or does not have the proper weight?
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight . If you wish to add viewpoints that disagreed with what took place at the meeting that sounds reasonable but that doesn't seem to justify the deletion of this viewpoint.
The other sources have additional information, analysis, and quotes. This falls under "When to cite sources". "To help users find additional information on the topic."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_needed#When_to_cite_sources
The use of the word Rumor is pejorative and POV. In fact it is not even being used accurately within the scope of it's definition. A rumor is defined as "an unverified account or explanation of events circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event, or issue in public concern" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumor This is verified by ORF citing the minutes and heise-online multiple sources within the meeting.Ethyr (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm restoring my changes with regards to the Austria affair, including the multiple references. I don't want to start an edit war so I waited seven days before restoring the content to allow interested parties to comment. I politely request that if someone wants to revert these changes they provide a thorough justification as I currently don't see the most of a case for calling the removed analysis and sources rumor. Ethyr (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
on Saturday they will have my full attention... --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
[confused] - didn't you already do this Several media sources have reported rumours that at a meeting about the interception of IP based services held on 25th June 2008, officials at the Austrian interior ministry said they could listen into conversation with no difficulty. I have no problem with that prose as it's not WP:UNDUE. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologizes for any confusion. I had edited the discussion page before making the changes to the article to make my intentions clear. In regards to your 'who' comment. The article unfortunately does not list the name of the speaker. Do you have any suggestions on how I could reword that sentience such that it wouldn't be considered weasel wordish.How would you feel if I rewrote the paragraph in question to say something like "Austrian broadcaster ORF citing minutes blah blah blah, This was also confirmed to heise-online using several unnamed source present at the meeting..." rather than use the "Several media sources ..." opening? Thanks for your help so far with this.98.216.51.77 (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SkypeOut?

There are 4 instances of the term 'SkypeOut' in the article, but no definition of the term.

-BCreegan —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCreegan (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Skype

By using skype can we talk with two mobile numbers with conference facility together at a time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.106.194 (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I heard it pronounced "skippy" the other day and I love it ... "skaɪp" has such an ugly sound ... so I've switched —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Free sofware helps the Skype community, I fail to see the difference of the Skypejournal, being able to have a link, yet these are not acceptable:

Extended content

In three of these cases, they are even listed on the Skype web site:

So, if the above links are good enough to be posted on Skype web pages, why not here, these are free programs for Skype, that Skype approves of, and posts on their web site.

The 4th link is for a tool so that Skype users, can see, when they complain about audio/video problems on Skype, and they are using a wireless connection, that they can use, again, free software, to see if there are OTHER wireless networks that are in their area, that maybe on their same wireless channel or close to their wireless channel, and then they can change their wireless channel, to have a better Skype experience.

Yet somehow these links are OK? Why?

I find this rather appalling. When the links I posted, minus 1, are approved and listed on the Skype web site, yet NOT good enough to be included with the links 2 above. Especially, when one of the links above is in FACT also linking to free software, that most of the list has NOTHING to do with Skype.

The SkypeJournal is NOT affilated with Skype.

ALL of these free programs are affilated with Skype as approved FREE applications and listed on the Skype web pages. It took me thousands of man hours to create them, for the Skype community, and I charge nothing for them, and never have.

ZOverLord (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The 4 links you gave are clearly commercial. Being free does not mean non-commercial. Free software that spams the user with ads is very commercial. Such links might be valid in an article about the very company or group offering said free software. But it isn't "about Skype". Skype is free to list any links they want on their own web site. The article about Skype links to the primary Skype website and people can find anything they want about Skype there.

The journal link is just ancillary information and a sometimes source. The Portable Skype link does not appear to be commercial.

Maybe a "List_of_Skype_Applications" article would be more appropriate (I don't know)?

PhilHoward (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The 2 links I listed that are there now then are clearly commerical, "Get It" if they are not, PLEASE explain, HOW they are not.

This link has 99 percent of links in it that have NOTHING to do with Skype, please re-review the links listed here. The list of links provided by the link below is for "Portable Applications (Windows)" I link in the entire list is for Skype, the 1 link, at the top:

If I use these links instead, are they commercial? They link directly to the Skype web pages:

ZOverLord (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything commercial in either the linked Skype Journal site or the Portable Applications site. I'm not going to spend time trying to prove a negative. If you see specific commercialism on those sites that you think is relevant, point specifically at it.

The saveontelephoneservices.com site is clearly commercial in nature, even blatantly so. Look on the main page and see. The specific links to particular pages even have lots of ads. But whether a SITE is commercial is more than just specific links.

I am in no way someone that decides policy here. I'm not a judge of this here. You'll need to convince others I currently have not identified. I'm only trying to explain it for your understanding. And I don't carry on long conversations to do that. If you can't figure out what Wikipedia considers acceptable or not by now, you'll have to find someone with more experience here, and more patience, to explain it.

PhilHoward (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since This link links to free sofware, for Skype, only the first link on the entire page:

Then, why can I not do the same?

Can I also use these links, to link to free software, that link directly to the Skype web site, if NOT, why NOT?

Get my point, you are saying it is "OK" for a link to exist, for free software, yet, my links for free software, that go directly to the Skype web pages, are "Somehow" NOT "OK".

I don't think you are reading what I am saying, I changed the links to point directly to the Skype web site, NOT saveontelephoneservices.com so, why should these links be "NOT" ok now, yet the other, link to free software is?

ZOverLord (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Set up a NON-COMMERCIAL web site for your free software. If your free software is also non-commercial in nature (spamming users with ads makes it commercial), maybe it will be acceptable. Otherwise the only place I can imagine it being listed would be "List_of_Skype_applications" or such, categorizing it for what it is (whatever it is ... I'm not inclined to put unknown software on my computer to find out).

PhilHoward (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the link that is there for free sofware now, again, 1 link of the entire list of links is for Skype and that link is not for "Approved" by Skype, so when you say:

"I'm not inclined to put unknown software on my computer to find out)."

NOTE: The Link above is has One link in the list of links for Skype, it is for "Portable_Applications_(Windows) Portable Skype for Windows". Some of the links in the list above, go to "Commercial Sites".

You have/are implemeting a double standard, because the links below, which I would like to add, ARE approved by Skype, and the links go "Directly" to the Skype web page and is free, NOT my web pages.

These links above, "Go Directly" to the Skype web pages, and is free, understand, NOT my web pages, the software in all three cases, HAS been approved by Skype, and is free, which is WHY, the 3 links above go directly to the Skype web pages, NOT my web pages?

So, since they "Go Directly" to the Skype web pages, may I use them, there is NOTHING to set up, they are on the Skype web pages.

Again, are you reading this, the 3 links above go directly to Skype web pages, not mine, the software has been approved by Skype and is free.

ZOverLord (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Approved by Skype" is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What's on Skype site is per Skype policy. What's on Wikipedia site is per Wikipedia policy. I do notice the one free software link is removed. So maybe that isn't per Wikipedia policy to have it. If that stands, that's how it is (and remember, I'm not a qualified judge of this ... just trying to explain it). I'm still saying your arguments don't apply to Wikipedia.

Maybe there will soon be a "List_of_<whatever>" for a list of Skype software. There is software listed in other lists for other stuff, so this seems plausible. Maybe one of the Skype article watchers will start it.

PhilHoward (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We aren't a product guide - external links should expand knowledge about the entity described in the subject, not expand knowledge on how to use it so a historical account of the formation of the company, a detailed account of how the underlying technology works - software links that expand the functionality of skype? not really suitable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I comprehend that, the issue was the "double-standard" of allowing 1 link, for free software to remain, but yet refusing mine.

Now that the "other" free software link has been removed, what you say makes sense, with it still there, as it was, it made no sense. Thanks.

ZOverLord (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Skype has people working here

Skype has people here working hard to make sure that nothing too nasty is said about them. They have begun altering their subscriptions services in everything but name (Unlimited World, for example) and selling them to unsuspecting customers. As most Skype users know, if you have a problem with Skype, you really have a problem, because they are very hard to get in touch with. I tried to put a paragraph up on the Skype entry about this, but it was taken off several times by a user, even when I linked directly to the Skype policy. Either someone has a very incongruent interest in Skype's image, or the user is working for Skype. We all know how the corporate state works... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.224.42.138 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF --ZimZalaBim talk 05:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Some, if not most, of us are not Skype employees. You need to adhere to WP:NPOV when adding content, and you weren't doing that. That's why I reverted your edits, and you were warned. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 05:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
One user's opinion of a company's service, no matter how truthful, is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. A verified news story, however, may be a reasonable reference as "reported problems". Do better web searching and find good documented resources about Skype. If it is bad as you say, that should be easy to find. News articles from reputable news sources are best. I'm not a user of Skype so I do not have personal knowledge about the service one way or the other. PhilHoward (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

GNU GPL

There should be info about their documented GPL violations. Superm401 - Talk 02:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The new Skype service

will it be able to phone to landlines and cellphones and send sms's when will the software be available,do we need extra hardware for this benefit or subscription? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.50.176 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It already can call land lines and cellphones, but Skype's SMS feature is broken, particularly with regard to setting up Caller ID. Setting up Caller ID requires sending a text message with a verification code from Skype's server to an SMS-capable telephone, i.e., a cell phone, not a home or business phone. Skype deducts the cost of the text message from the user's account, but fails to send the SMS message. The user can still make calls to normal phones using Skype, but the called party won't see the Caller ID and may refuse to take the call. This problem has existed from at least June 2008 to the present. See more at Features of Skype. —QuicksilverT @ 23:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of Skype

Would it be appropriate to mention the multitude of people who take advantage of Skype to "safely" make prank calls to people since the number that comes up on a caller ID is generally a default Skype number and thus untraceable (e.g. 202-580-8200)?
See whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/2025808200 "Who calls me?". --KirkCliff2 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's speculative; we don't know that it's a "multitude" of people. The people who use Skype to make prank calls or crank calls may be less than 0.01% of all SkypeOut calls. Moreover, 202-580-8200 is only one of a multitude of caller ID numbers used by Skype: An even more generic one in the U.S. is 000-012-3456. —QuicksilverT @ 01:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Morten Lund

Confused Intro

The section detailing Skype's "commercial adventures" ("The company was acquired by eBay in September 2005" etc) seems out of place here. It doesn't really have anything to do with the basic explanation of what Skype is all about and just seems way off the point at the top of the article.120.16.10.92 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skype/Archive_4&oldid=335790578"