×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Down the Road, But In the Works: 3-D Video Calls From Skype

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the via-second-life dept.

Communications 97

An anonymous reader notes that Skype is reportedly working on a 3D version of its messaging application. As reported by the BBC, an unnamed senior executive says that rumors to this effect are true. However, don't get too worked up about sending your avatar to school or to work just yet: Microsoft's corporate vice-president for Skype, Mark Gillett, says that "the capture devices are not yet there. As we work with that kind of technology you have to add multiple cameras to your computer, precisely calibrate them and point them at the right angle. ... We have it in the lab, we know how to make it work and we're looking at the ecosystem of devices and their capability to support it in order to make a decision when we might think about bringing something like that to market." Also at SlashBI.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

97 comments

I don't want 2D video (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about 8 months ago | (#44706955)

Why would I want 3D? I thought 3D was dead anyway - no-one wants it anywhere.

Microsoft, trying to innovate. How embarrassing. Surely there's another company they can buy some kinect-like tech off to at least give the impression they have a clue about what's going on in the industry?

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707139)

I agree. Video chatting is a niche market for long distance relationships and businesses obsessed with image and possessing enough cash to hire staff to set it up.

Video chat is never going mainstream, 3D video chat won't even go niche, and the "help me obi-wan" starwars holograms everyone envisions for the future will only ever be used for porn.

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707435)

Spoken like someone who hasn't used Google hangouts. I don't have to get out of bed to hang out with people that live on the opposite side of the country.

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44709587)

As someone in a long-distance relationship, I would love to have a 3D tablet with 2 front cams for stereo. The extra one or two front cameras can't possibly cost very much, and the 3D display is also great for a tablet form-factor (games, content), although it's probably just going to work in one orientation. Extra front cameras would also allow the tablet to do it's own 3D processing for better face/gesture recognition once the extra computational cost isn't a significant battery drain.

Re:I don't want 2D video (3, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#44709773)

You're going to look silly wearing your 3d glasses every time you meet on Skype to whisper sweet nothings just between the two of you and the NSA.

Skype is off all of my machines since microsoft pulled all the streams through its own servers.

(I actually suspect the NSA funded Microsoft's purchase of Skype strictly to get it into the hands
of someone who would play their game, because Microsoft stripped every innovation out of skype
that allowed privacy and network robustness).

NSA (1)

DrYak (748999) | about 8 months ago | (#44737695)

I actually suspect the NSA funded Microsoft's purchase of Skype strictly to get it into the hands
of someone who would play their game

Yeah, as if Skype's end-user license agreement didn't already mention that they were ready to collaborate with law enforcement as required by local wiretapping laws.

End-to-end encryption, people. That's the only way to be sure.

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 8 months ago | (#44707267)

You're not seeing the real objective. Think of movies and holograms. Very cool stuff. That's the objective for this technology. To some people there is value to this technology.

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#44709803)

Movies and holograms?

Like 3D movies don't already exist?

Holograms aren't going to come from Skype, or Microsoft. You need an innovative company to get that to work on any kind of an acceptable scale.

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 8 months ago | (#44718279)

Silly boy,

Your lack of thinking is impressive to say the least.

3D movies are rendered. Now, how do you take a live picture and make it 3D. That is what this technology does. Take the same tech and move it to holograms. MS won't develop the hologram technology, they will as usual provide software and services for the hardware.

And saying MS isn't innovative is silly. You don't know half the stuff they're working on. It's like saying Ford isn't innovating because there are no flying cars... It's not because you don't see an immediate impact in your life that there isn't innovation.

Re:I don't want 2D video (2, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#44707365)

Why would I want 3D?

I am not sure if 3D is the answer, but we need more realistic immersive technology. We consume millions of barrels of oil every day to physically move people to the same location as other people, so they can interact and collaborate. Telecommuting with current technology just doesn't work well for most people. We need some sort of holodeck that allows people to be fully immersed in their work environment without being physically present.

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707581)

I think crisp video and microphones that eliminate background noise and breathing would go a long way. How many times have you had a video conference and been utter exhausted from filtering out all of the echos, cuts, and scratches?

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

dj245 (732906) | about 8 months ago | (#44707763)

I think crisp video and microphones that eliminate background noise and breathing would go a long way. How many times have you had a video conference and been utter exhausted from filtering out all of the echos, cuts, and scratches?

My company's equipment has the opposite problem. The noise filtering is too aggressive, causing people to fade in and out unless they are nearly shouting. It is embarrassing how crappy phone quality is these days.

I use a SIP service at home and pay for premium routing. The difference in call quality is pretty astounding, even when calling the other side of the planet.

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#44708503)

your company needs to stop being cheap bastards and upgrade their gear. current gear is phenominal in audio quality.

Re:I don't want 2D video (3, Insightful)

dj245 (732906) | about 8 months ago | (#44707745)

Why would I want 3D?

I am not sure if 3D is the answer, but we need more realistic immersive technology. We consume millions of barrels of oil every day to physically move people to the same location as other people, so they can interact and collaborate. Telecommuting with current technology just doesn't work well for most people. We need some sort of holodeck that allows people to be fully immersed in their work environment without being physically present.

We need a system where I look at someone's image in the eye, and from their perspective they are looking at me in the eye. This is basically impossible to do with current technology. You can try to fake it in various ways, but the illusion is never perfect. Until this happens videoconferencing will always be an inferior means of communication.

If someone could figure out how to embed cameras in a display panel, that would be the best solution. A stopgap solution is to have a very small camera on a small tripod and putting it directly infront of the other person's face on the screen, but this isn't a great solution.

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 8 months ago | (#44709637)

If someone could figure out how to embed cameras in a display panel, that would be the best solution.

Been there, patented that. [appleinsider.com]

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 8 months ago | (#44707851)

Why not just hire locals?

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#44708097)

Why not just hire locals?

What do you mean by "local"? Most commutes are under 30 miles, and those commutes still consume a hundred million gallons of gasoline every day.

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707933)

Porn chat, dude. 3D Porn chat!

Re:I don't want 2D video (2)

doesnothingwell (945891) | about 8 months ago | (#44708387)

We need some sort of holodeck that allows people to be fully immersed in their work environment without being physically present.

Management needs the holodeck to measure productivity by the level of discomfort on the slaves faces, its about the effort. The hardest working boss is always available to promote how hard he's working. Getting that image of "the hard working minions" to his boss is the biggest challenge. Show the boss your visible suffering and your most of the way to success in business.

"Peter, You've been missing a lot of work lately."

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44708499)

I think we'll run out of oil before we get holodeck immersion.

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707691)

This is exactly the type of application that 3D is suitable for. In regular 2D videos you need to compensate for the lack of depth by using multiple cameras or constantly changing the viewing angle. But you can't do that with the single static 2D camera that's commonly used for video calls. A single static 3D camera compensates for that shortcomming.

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707975)

Speak for yourself. Videochat can definitely have its uses.

My former employers used to use it for meetings where groups were spread across the country. If not for video chat, there are decent chances that I wouldn't have recognized my bosses at the time (they visited my area very seldom and a few of my bosses I'd only seen a handful of times in person).

Or for a more casual example, my friends have had a routine game night for years. Eventually, they started a large scale Dungeons and Dragons campaign. Years into the campaign, the DM needed to move (due to work) and the game looked like it was going to be abruptly ended. Instead, a Skype setup was added to the basement and things continued on unabated. A few months later, someone else moved and we attempted to add them in by just an additional microphone and we quickly realized that the visual component was necessary for things to really work (communications issues came up constantly).

The quality of the 3D transmission would definitely determine how useful it is, but it's definitely technology that could have its uses.

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#44708481)

Time for a Real confrerence setup. Mixer + 2 ceiling mics hanging by cables to a DSP that you feed the two skype machines. I also reccomend putting the two USB cameras from the ceiling for the two machines to see the table clearly.

Easily done with less than $400 in used parts and someone with a decent technology IQ.

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44711001)

that is some serious dedication to D&D.

Roll20 is a great tool for this sort of thing.

Re:I don't want 2D video (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#44726081)

Most RPG people spend WAY more than $400 on silly books embossed with fake dragon skin, and special dice. $400 for tech to get people to actually play is nothing at all.

I was at Gencon this year, A lot of RPG players spend ungodly amounts of money on their gaming. So much that they cant afford soap to take showers from the smell of them.

Re:I don't want 2D video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44709407)

The fact that they even mention 3D video is even more outrageous in the light of the fact that regular 2D group video calling does not work on Linux at all. I found about it the hard way several days ago having spent 15 EUR on Skype Premium.

I'd rather they fix normal video chat before they venture onto 3D holograms, faster-than-light communications and similar absurd features.

FTFY (5, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 8 months ago | (#44707007)

As we work with that kind of technology you have to add multiple cameras to your computer, precisely calibrate them and point them at the right angle. ... We have it in the lab, we know how to make it work and we're looking at the ecosystem of devices and their capability to support it in order to make a decision when we might think about bringing something like that to market."

It requires laptop manufacturers to place two cheap webcams in the lid instead of one, and the appropriate software. We have it in the lab and would like to launch. We are currently in liaison with our armies of attorneys and MBAS to make sure that all our patents, copyrights and other vendor lock in is correctly set up to maximize corporate profit at the expense of consumer flexibility and satisfaction. Only one the attorneys are done will we bring the product to market.

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707129)

There was that Android tablet that did 3D a while back...

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707213)

You say that like prior art matters these days...

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44708071)

I say that to point out that the hardware manufacturers are ready....

Re:FTFY (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about 8 months ago | (#44707223)

It would also require an autostereoscopic screen unless you want to video chat with glasses.

Re:FTFY (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#44708271)

no, they are doing the shutter technique. Every other frame is left - right left - right. You just have to blink each eye 30x per second alternately.

Re:FTFY (1)

kithchung (1116051) | about 8 months ago | (#44707279)

Microsoft owns Skype, XBox and Kinect...one would imagine this would be the initial offering and selling point for xbone.

Re:FTFY (1)

godrik (1287354) | about 8 months ago | (#44707627)

Nintendo essentially already does that in the 3DS. I guess they just want more resolution using more cameras.

3D... (2)

bmo (77928) | about 8 months ago | (#44707009)

...because 2D sexting is not enough for Anthony Weiner!

"heh heh heh he said weiner" - Beavis

--
BMO - puerile enough for you!

wow better be careful (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707015)

if you mistakenly send that 3D stream to your makerbot. the legal implications of making perfect clones of human beings have not been fully studied yet.

That 3D printing is powerful stuff, be careful kids.

You wouldn't want to be in jail when the Eschaton comes and we all move to Mars.

Re:wow better be careful (1)

bmo (77928) | about 8 months ago | (#44707049)

Immanentize the Eschaton? I'm busy trying to MONETIZE IT!

--
BMO

Skype can barely handle regular calls... (3, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about 8 months ago | (#44707061)

Skype can barely handle regular voice calls, why do you think it is up to the task for anything else?

Re:Skype can barely handle regular calls... (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 months ago | (#44707083)

Yeah - I'd be happier if they worked on ways to improve call quality even if the connection isn't the greatest.

I don't use video too often as there are often issues.

Re:Skype can barely handle regular calls... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707525)

I've been a Skype-In and 'unlimited' local/LD customer for many years, and from my perspective it's gotten worse and worse call quality wise. It's gotten so bad, I suspect I will have to cancel, avg call lasts 2-5 minutes before it drops, and other person has drops in my voice so much they are guessing how to complete the sentence. This is not system/connection specific, as it's across a half dozen diff computers and internet connections/isps.
"Internet Phone" back in 1993/4 did better when I was talking to random people 'full duplex over 28.8 modem to brazil from Nova Scotia..

I would almost assume Skype/MS(or whoever owns them now) is taking orders from teleco's to make their service crap to try to drive people back to traditional sources...

Re:Skype can barely handle regular calls... (1)

godrik (1287354) | about 8 months ago | (#44707653)

Really? What do you use then? I tried so many alternatives (tango, kakao talk, various SIP providers) and they are all so much worse than skype.

Re:Skype can barely handle regular calls... (1)

sinij (911942) | about 8 months ago | (#44708133)

>>>Really? What do you use then?

Traditional PSTN.

Re:Skype can barely handle regular calls... (1)

volxdragon (1297215) | about 8 months ago | (#44709497)

Traditional PSTN.

Which in many cases is backhauled VOIP or compressed to the point of being as bad as Skype these days....the days of pure copper between you and the other party are pretty much dead...

Re:Skype can barely handle regular calls... (1)

sinij (911942) | about 8 months ago | (#44710505)

>>>Which in many cases is backhauled VOIP

Correct. >>>to the point of being as bad as Skype

This does not match my experiences. My traditional land line that I use for business communications never has any voice quality issues.

Re:Skype can barely handle regular calls... (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 8 months ago | (#44707995)

yeah... 3D is cool but before they add features that eat up more bandwidth, they need to make voice actually work.

As in, make it less laggy and full duplex so we can actually hold a conversation. Right now if I'm talking, the other party needs to stay absolutely quiet or they're not gonna hear anything I'm saying.

Just hand-waving from the Skype people (1)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | about 8 months ago | (#44707071)

Ballmer fired.
New CEO coming in a few months time.
Share-holders are demanding sweeping changes across the board.
MS's Skype division "Look at us, we're doing stuff. We're still relevant. Please don't axe us."

Re:Just hand-waving from the Skype people (1)

bmo (77928) | about 8 months ago | (#44707167)

>Ballmer fired.

People keep repeating this as if it was true.

Ballmer has always had too much voting stock to be voted off as CEO. He was either going to retire or die, but being fired was not one of the options, ever.

--
BMO

Re:Just hand-waving from the Skype people (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 8 months ago | (#44707575)

>Ballmer fired.

People keep repeating this as if it was true.

Ballmer has always had too much voting stock to be voted off as CEO. He was either going to retire or die, but being fired was not one of the options, ever.

-- BMO

"Pressured" into getting out the f'n way, might be a better way of putting it then.

Re:Just hand-waving from the Skype people (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 8 months ago | (#44707879)

Yeah, it makes perfect sense to announce your retirement just after a major re-organization, when your successor is only going to reorganize everything again after you leave.

Then again, I guess it does make about as much sense as Windows 8.

3d (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 8 months ago | (#44707109)

Help me Obi Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.

Re:3d (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#44707265)

Greetings underling,

Unfortunatelly (for you) Obi Wan Kenobi was fired together with those 90% of sysadms.

Yours,
NSA

PS. In the interest of the percentage we require from your paid taxes, we strongly suggest you to upgrade your 3D camera set. The captured clips are of a terrible quality: the pale blue color and intermitent flickering currently requires 250% more CPU power for data extraction than the transmissions we capture from more conscious citizens

Not 3D. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 8 months ago | (#44707155)

Stereovision.

There is a world of difference.

3D would mean that one's real-space position would affect exactly what they see. It would also mean that one wouldn't have to wear glasses to perceive the depth. You would perceive different images in each eye, producing the appearance of depth, because your eyes are in different locations in space instead of because specific different images are being forced into them.

Re:Not 3D. (2)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 8 months ago | (#44707285)

As if stereoscopy was the only to perceive depth clues... You forget about depth of focus, parallax motion, occultation, and cognitive processes, such as knowing the size of an object and its apparent size...

Re:Not 3D. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 8 months ago | (#44707615)

Depth of focus caused by the eye lens isn't really used by the brain to detect distance actually. The most significant factors that contribute to sense of depth for near objects are the difference between left and right eye views and how convergent the eyes must be to look at an object (and the latter generally less so than the former), For objects beyond a few meters away, parallax motion and relative size to objects which appear near it and which have a known size are the primary cues.

Re:Not 3D. (1)

WarJolt (990309) | about 8 months ago | (#44709325)

Stereovision and RGB+depth(like the kinect) a similar limitations.
You can only see the image from one viewing angle.

RGB+depth with knowledge of a focal length of the lens can be used to construct a point cloud(RGB+XYZ) and potentially used to construct meshes.
The point cloud can be rotated and zoomed because its a true 3d model, but 3d information will be missing for anything that is obscured by an object.
For example you will not see the back of the head.
Supporting true 3d streaming however would be neat if you had multiple 3d cameras from multiple angles.
A true 3d model could possibly be used to create a hologram.

Re:Not 3D. (1)

JuzzFunky (796384) | about 8 months ago | (#44713869)

I posted this link earlier in this thread, but for what it's worth, this is genuine Volumetric 3D that we have been working on: Voxiebox at Science Alive [youtube.com]

Re:Not 3D. (1)

bug_hunter (32923) | about 8 months ago | (#44713953)

It's cool to see you've even got a volumetric Princess Leia, the Turing test of 3D imagery.
(also looks like it has useful applications, if you're into that sort of thing)

Google+ Hangouts are going HD Now (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 8 months ago | (#44707159)

Its going to use VP8 over H.264 too the reasons. " Chew says that VP8 will be able to deliver HD video to up to 10 people at a time, which is something H.264 couldn't handle. VP8 will also take up less bandwidth than H.264, allowing Hangouts to deliver better looking video at lower bit rates. And VP8 will also allow Google to begin transitioning Hangouts over to WebRTC, an emerging set of video and audio standards" http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/28/4668326/google-hangouts-getting-720p-hd-video-upgrade [theverge.com]

Re:Google+ Hangouts are going HD Now (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707749)

Great news for the 8 people that use G+ Hangouts...

Re:Google+ Hangouts are going HD Now (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#44708427)

How about hangouts not using far more processor than a 3d rendering? I can run skype on a older PC, Google hangouts takes a quad core i7 overclocked to 20ghz to run smoothly and not explode after 1 hour.

Re:Google+ Hangouts are going HD Now (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 8 months ago | (#44709469)

Chew says that VP8 will be able to deliver HD video to up to 10 people at a time, which is something H.264 couldn't handle.

What are you talking about? Neither VP8 nor H264 can handle that, because they're not fucking communications protocols. They're video codecs. Video codecs don't deliver anything to anyone. They just store video.

Re:Google+ Hangouts are going HD Now (1)

volxdragon (1297215) | about 8 months ago | (#44709527)

I tried the Google stuff for a day....then I uninstalled it because I didn't like the 8 billion ET-call-homes it did non-stop (even when not in use) that LittleSnitch told me it was doing...

Re:Google+ Hangouts are going HD Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44714961)

Der der Larry Paige fellatio der derr Sergey Brin der derrrr Eric Schmidt penis.

~ another Tuppe666 comment

huh? (2)

JustNiz (692889) | about 8 months ago | (#44707195)

>> vice-president for Skype, Mark Gillett, says that "the capture devices are not yet there"

Wow that was a bit of a slip. There is and its even a Microsoft product. Seems to me this is exactly the sort of thing Kinnect is useful for.

Re:huh? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#44707339)

>> vice-president for Skype, Mark Gillett, says that "the capture devices are not yet there"

Wow that was a bit of a slip. There is and its even a Microsoft product. Seems to me this is exactly the sort of thing Kinnect is useful for.

Slip... yes (like in the Freudian one). But not the one you think... he meant that the capture device to plug Skype-3D into the PRISM is not yet ready.

the NSA will love this. (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 8 months ago | (#44707249)

it seems like this would be the perfect way for the NSA to get 3d models of your face for facial recognition and associating it to you is easy if pay for any skype services. from there they can pick you out of any video feeds they look at. this isnt paranoia, this is very possible. we already know they have full access to the system and this is just an incremental step..

Re:the NSA will love this. (1)

kanweg (771128) | about 8 months ago | (#44707407)

Plus, we want to know what you're hiding behind your body when you skype.

NSA Bert

(That's Nefarious Secret Agent Bert)

Re:the NSA will love this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44709647)

they can already do this unless you are perfectly still during every single vid chat, and never deviate from the same location relative to the camera.

Wow ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#44707293)

Is there a big pent up market demand for 3D skype calls?

Sounds like a problem in search of a solution to me ... because except for the obvious porn applications, would the average skype call be improved by being in 3D?

Maybe I'm just missing something here, or not the target audience. I just don't see the value in this.

Yuo Fail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707309)

fi8st organization

2009 called and wants its niche technology back. (1)

Dputiger (561114) | about 8 months ago | (#44707355)

I really want to know who asked for this feature.

Re:2009 called and wants its niche technology back (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 8 months ago | (#44707605)

I really want to know who asked for this feature.

Its a story concocted for the press / publicity. Reputation management stuff. Its does not exist, and may never well. Sounds like a nightmare to set up anyway. You'd probably have to hire a "computer scientist".

I want to see heavy encryption (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707385)

before I start using skype again

Re:I want to see heavy encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707863)

before I start using skype again

What's the point of heavy encryption if Microsoft send the decrypted data straight to the NSA?

Re:I want to see heavy encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44708803)

That's why I use GPG on all my video calls, although the latency sucks.

Back to basics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44707647)

Skype has some of the worst user interfaces on its current products. (Particularly OS X.) They could add the 3D feature tomorrow and I wouldn't be interested in using it. They would do themselves well to raise the bar on their current products first before getting in over their heads with 3D.

Skype working on 3D is like Somalia working on the next space shuttle.

Cool!!! (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 8 months ago | (#44708091)

Because 3D is the next big thing in....oh wait everybody is pulling out of 3D content these days.

Leave it to Microsoft to be way behind on current consumer trends.

Bloat (3, Informative)

Loki_666 (824073) | about 8 months ago | (#44708297)

Can the Skype team stop adding more and more crap to it, and start removing some of the existing bloat?

I want an instant messenger, not something that takes minutes to load, minutes to fetch messages (many of which i already read on another comp or on my phone, but it still alerts me like they are new messages), and when finally loaded i get bombarded with ads that do not interest me in the slightest, or offers to connect Skype to Facebook and the like, something i already told it to go do something anatomically impossible about more than once.

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Re:Bloat (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 8 months ago | (#44714323)

Can the Skype team stop adding more and more crap to it, and start removing some of the existing bloat?

I want an instant messenger, not something that takes minutes to load, minutes to fetch messages (many of which i already read on another comp or on my phone, but it still alerts me like they are new messages), and when finally loaded i get bombarded with ads that do not interest me in the slightest, or offers to connect Skype to Facebook and the like, something i already told it to go do something anatomically impossible about more than once.

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Umm, why not use something like Jitsi [jitsi.org] instead?

Only thing is I'm still looking for a decent SIP video client for Android - Sipdroid is excellent for voice calls, but its video support is completely broken. :(

Re:Bloat (1)

Loki_666 (824073) | about 8 months ago | (#44714699)

Work requirement, that's why i'm stuck with Skype

Re:Bloat (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 8 months ago | (#44714999)

Work requirement, that's why i'm stuck with Skype

Can't understand why businesses have standardised on an insecure proprietary system (which, I might add, is absolute hell to deal with from a firewalling perspective), rather than the industry standard open system...

How about.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#44708397)

Making current 2D calls not suck first? Skype's video quality is ungodly sucky compared to real VC software.

I want a proper working software first! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44708493)

Skype was great. It allowed you to customize privacy settings, set your own themes, colors, and use third party distros of the app. It didn't crash that often particularly if you're on unstable connection. But Microsoft came around, killed the android app so that it would break about 15x a day at least, the PC version became uglier than ever, features were removed, and the NSA got involved. I don't give two-cents about 3D support because they can't even get 2D to work without crashing at least once or twice every few hours. LDRs are impossibly hard with skype. I suppose that's why viber is quickly replacing skype.

Re:I want a proper working software first! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44710313)

I couldn't agree more since microsoft took over Skype has gone downhill. The win8 app and desktop need integration. My desktop version is so unstable I can't use it and the app doesn't work if you are on the desktop. This is a massive screw-up for microsoft. This could be their chance to shine, but instead they do not seem to be able to integrate different products. That is the one thing Apple does well. Their software is less flexible but much better integrated. If they want win 8 to survive they really need to get their act together. (and I do not hate win 8)

imagine the possibilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44709009)

if different microsoft divisions actually *worked together* instead of separately...

they've got a usb, pc-compatible 3d motion and audio capture device in kinect

they've got audio and video calling and conferencing app and service in skype

doesn't take a 3rd grader to add those up.. hell, even unca stevie could figure that one out.

if kinect needs a hardware modification to work.. call it "kinect one with skype" bundle it with the new shitbox and make it available separately for windows for $149 with $50 skype credit in the box.

Precedent (1)

Livius (318358) | about 8 months ago | (#44710175)

Given the customer response to 3-D movies, I'm unconvinced there will be a consumer market.

Though in special cases, like remotely supervising surgery, it could be extremely valuable.

fuck you skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44710379)

How about no. I stopped using Skype after the NSA bullshit. There is only so much of this bullshit a person can take.

3D puts the XXX in XOXOXO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44711701)

3D Skype? I can see how this would potentially benefit my long-distance girlfriend, but I'm not sure I'd see any appeal in it. She has small breasts.

Pidgin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44712621)

So what?

Next release of Pidgin will allow you to do videoconferencing! Well, sort of, and only in Linux. And with a maximum of 1 fps.
Windows users will get it soon after that, just 3 years later.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...