Skype has partnered with the UNHCR to develop and test a low-bandwidth version of their software. You can read similar stories at Mashable and The Guardian.
It sounds like they’re basing it on an older version of their software that was already optimised for slower connections , and switching off the peer-to-peer component which consumes bandwidth in the background, and is the main reason Skype is banned in many places. The priority is being able to place a voice call, with video features disabled until the link is considered suitable.
This is all welcome news and I wish the development of the technology and the Skype / UNHCR partnership every success.
However, I’m sure others had the same reaction I did: I want it too! So here it goes:
Dear Skype,
I’d like to propose that the low-bandwidth edition of Skype be made available to the general public as soon as possible. From my perspective:
- Skype is used (and could be used) every day by individuals and organisations using relatively low-bandwidth, variable latency, and intermittent quality connections. By offering a beta release of a low bandwidth edition, users can make a choice to use it and contribute feedback as they see fit, just as with your existing beta releases.
- UNHCR does work that directly saves lives; I’m sure they operate in locations that offer an “ideal testing environment”, but you can find these environments elsewhere, in situations that don’t have such critical communications needs. I’m not suggesting testing with UNHCR is a bad idea, but doing so exclusively is a missed opportunity.
- The marginal cost of making low-bandwidth Skype available to the general public seems small and the potential benefits seem high. If you’re unable to make low-bandwidth Skype available to the general public because of the agreement with UNHCR, I’ll reserve judgement until I know more but at this stage, I’m not sure I like the agreement.
- There’s something deeply appealing about a software company making their product simpler - in my experience over the last few years (and particularly on Windows), Skype has been getting bigger, more complicated and “feature rich”. For users with more modest computers or just those who want to instant message, talk and send the odd file – a slimmed down version of Skype has to be more appealing.
Again, critical words aside, I think this is very welcome news and I wish the development of the technology and the Skype / UNHCR partnership every success.
With kind regards,
Tariq
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for this feedback – it’s great to hear that there’s interest in the project from other organisations. We’re keeping our eyes and ears open, though as I said in my comment on our blog, we aren’t able to discuss our future plans at present.
Tobias Engen also wrote about this.
Notably, he asks:
“If there is broad interest in smaller, lighter weight Skype software that works better on low bandwidth connections, perhaps Skype and/or UNHCR would respond to a petition?
Are there non-proprietary (eg SIP) alternatives available that are as easy (or nearly as easy) to use as Skype but function better on low-bandwidth connections? Does Google Talk work better on low-bandwidth connections?”
In my experience: Google talk works better on low bandwidth connections, mainly because they use low-bandwidth optimised speech codecs (G.723 and Speex?) and there’s no P2P component. At work, we also use GoToMeeting (not free) which often performs better than Skype on slower connections.
Will write more about low bandwidth Skype alternatives soon!
Cheers!
Tariq