Skip to main content

Why aren't you all Skyping?

I have regular meetings with my agent. We chat, we can see each other... yet we're 80 miles apart, and even better it doesn't cost anything.

We use Skype the internet phone/video thingy and it's absolutely brilliant.

Now, what I don't understand is why so few people use it. Oh, I know Skype has millions of customers. But my agent is about the only person I know I use it regularly with. We have several friends who have it - but they don't keep it on, which misses the whole point. Skype is like phoning, but it's better and it's free. And we have lots more friends who have broadband, but don't use Skype at all.

I know it's a bit more of a faff than picking up a phone, because you have to be in the room your computer's in (unless you have one of the dinky Skype phones that work when the computer's switched off), but it's so much better than an ordinary phone call if you have video - particularly if you go for the HD video, which is stunning quality.

This is beginning to sound like an ad for Skype - it's not (they're not paying me anything, the swines), but I'm genuinely amazed that more people don't make use of it. Get Skyping people.
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox31 March 2009 at 09:35

    I used to have skype on my main computer, but it was somewhat flaky and kept prompting me for updates which never seemed to work properly and kept sending me prompts even after I'd installed them. When we moved to Cromer I didn't bother to re-register. However, it is featured on my Asus Eee but I couldn't get it to work there either. After that I didn't seem to be able to spare time to go through all that faff all over again. Nice idea - crap implementation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg31 March 2009 at 10:44

    That's strange - I've never had a problem with it and use it a lot, plus use its link to the normal phone system for outgoing calls...

    ReplyDelete
  3. cromercrox31 March 2009 at 11:20

    Maybe it's just me, and/or I was using a beta version. I believe Mrs Cromercrox uses it with some success.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maxine Clarke31 March 2009 at 14:36

    By a strange coincidence (?) I read in my (hard copy) newspaper on the train this morning that Skye is set to achieve the take-off velocity which you write is lacking (and which I have read elsewhere is indeed the case) because it is about to be a free app on the iPhone. If Prof CromerCrox revisits, he might well revive his interest in the light of this info.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian Clegg31 March 2009 at 15:42

    Yep, Maxine's right, oh mighty Cromeroid, it is now available free on the iPhone and (frinstance) anywhere you've got wifi you can then Skype wonderful people like me FOC.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian Clegg31 March 2009 at 15:44

    But seriously, I lurve it. You can just do the free calls (with optional video) which is what I was on about in the main post, but for about £20 a year you can have an incoming proper telephone number, plus can make free outgoing calls to normal landline phones...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous31 March 2009 at 19:20

    I, too, lurve Skype. I'd never heard of it until I had to use it for the Litopia podcasts. I've never had any trouble with it, and I can talk to buds in the UK. What power that is! I've used it for editing meetings with my authors, which is a godsend considering we can be online for a couple hours.

    I say you and I hold Skype up for money, Brian. We're the perfect spokes-holes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. cromercrox31 March 2009 at 23:03

    Thanks for the tips, Maxine and Brian. No sooner had I received them than I hied straightway to my iPhone and within about 5mins it was all set up. My skyope name is 'henrygee'. 'cromercrox' was already taken. How strange. I immediately dcalled Brian .... but he was out...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brian Clegg1 April 2009 at 09:01

    In bed, actually, Henry. Us country folk aren't late night stopouts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. cromercrox1 April 2009 at 10:05

    And there was I thinking that rural Wilts was Le Grand Metrop compared with Norfolk. Another illusion shattered.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Amanda Lees1 April 2009 at 10:11

    I learn Bulgarian via Skype - my teacher, Boris, is 2000 miles away in Plovdiv and we wave at one another via webcam. You're right, though, Brian - I don't leave it on and I should. It's just that it might become one more distraction to keep me from writing and what would my Skype-loving agent have to say about that?!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Brian Clegg1 April 2009 at 12:21

    Henry - there's country, and there's rural backwoods: quite different. We know here that only city slickers are up after 11pm.

    Amanda - I don't find it any more a distraction than having a phone. If you treat it like that (rather than like my kids treat MSN) it's fine!

    P.S. I think Henry is now a convert after some success on his iPhone...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Amanda Lees1 April 2009 at 19:11

    I live in Shepherd's Bush and by 11pm I am begging for bed...we city slickers are not as hardy as some people make out!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bob O'Hara2 April 2009 at 18:58

    Skype is great for trans-Atlantic relationships too, although we mainly use texting (don't want to wake The Beast up). I even used it to keep the other half company whilst she was waiting in hospital to have her arm prodded around.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brian Clegg2 April 2009 at 22:12

    Good point, Bob. I don't happen to have friends-and-relations abroad, but many do and it's great for that...

    ReplyDelete
  16. cromercrox6 April 2009 at 13:07

    Having now become a convert (and there are none so zealous as the converted) I come back to Brian's original question ... why isn't everyone on Skype? I put out an advert for Skypers on my Facebook profile and only two of my 'friends' responded (I have more than 300 Facebook friends ... hey, I'll just turn my charisma down a noth and they'll just drift away).

    Mrs Gee, tho' she has used Skype, has trouble with it, but I was able to impress her with my iPhone by getting a voice call through to one of her best friends who currently lives in Egypt, and they were able to chat away for as long as they wanted for free.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more