I have to say that I see Skype in two lights -- one is as an internet-era company that sees the technology has arrived* to break the grip of the oligarchic telcos. (Who block advances for that very reason.)

The other is as described, the owned-by-a-big-company, using closed software, proprietary and not necessarily a good citizen.

I might lean towards the former interpretation most of the time. I don't think it's a bad thing at all that someone is wielding kryptonite against the telco's.

But my point isn't "Yea! Skype!" My point is that the usefulness of Skype's large user base is way more than Gizmo's or Google Talk's. And if I could use my Verizon FiOS router to make Gizmo calls, I would but I can't. [Hm-m. Points made earlier in this thread are very interesting in that regard.]

A phone tied to a desktop computer (even if just for dialing and answering) or to a not-really-that portable laptop makes ALL voip frustrating, at the ease-of-use level compared to any cordless or cell phone.

So voip on N800 that starts out with a large potential base of people to call at no charge and, of course, includes every phone at way-better-than-cellphone rates -- well, that's something to cheer about, in my book.

If my wife is making a call on our house phone, and I want to join a conference call while making a sandwich and then heading outside to eat it -- Skype looks like it will give me that alternative, which I didn't have before. Gizmo on the conference call number I use was a dismal bomb.

Hey, a cheap second line and third line with the same walkaround convenience of any other phone -- why shouldn't we be cheered by that?

Roger

__________
* Heck, in 1979 I saw Microsoft in the same light, with IBM and other big-computer companies playing the heavies. Does anyone here remember IBM intentionally hobbled its PCjr so as not to threaten its more-expensive models? Yes, a technology company that felt it didn't need to offer ever-improving capabilities, because it controlled its markets so effectively.