| |||||||||||||
Skype vs SIPSkype vs SIPPosted Jul 12, 2009 12:40 UTC (Sun) by Cato (subscriber, #7643)In reply to: Skype vs SIP by hingo Parent article: Identi.ca pushes forward
All good points. One other reason why Skype won is voice quality, which is far better than even a clear landline call. This is because it licensed a very high quality codec that is resistant to significant packet loss, and actually encodes more audio information than normal (non-VoIP) phone service, and more than most VoIP codecs. And they still managed to keep the client free (as in beer).
(Log in to post comments)
Skype vs SIP Posted Jul 12, 2009 19:02 UTC (Sun) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] Yup, I'm a fan of iLBC too. I think some SIP-VoIP clients used that too though, so it is not that Skype had this exclusively to themselves. But yes, the quality is great.
Skype vs SIP Posted Jul 16, 2009 3:52 UTC (Thu) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]
Happily, Jabber clients can soon provide a free and open replacement for Skype. Google Talk is audio-interoperable with any clients that use libjingle (currently, Empathy and the Nokia N8x0 IM client), and all of them support the free Speex codec.
Video is another matter, as Google Talk uses only H.264, but Empathy and the Nokia client support video calls between each other too.
Skype vs SIP Posted Jul 16, 2009 9:15 UTC (Thu) by muwlgr (guest, #35359) [Link]
For Jabber/XMPP implementations, just give me this distributed chat synchronization like the one I get using Skype. Before that, it is just not worth discussing.
|
|||||||||||||