More than a few comments trying to rationalize why Skype is different under Microsoft. (Supernodes are controlled by Microsoft, not users.) Also some comments exhibiting misconceptions about the relative feasibility of peer-to-peer networking today compared to the past.
Some users want peer-to-peer networks that are controlled by users, not third parties such as Microsoft, Facebook, etc. It seems that corporations are also interested in such networks. But they just want the users, not the ability to exclude third parties (they are a third party).
What is important for these interested users is that Skype changed and how it changed, not why changed.
No explanation, rationale or excuse is a substitute for a peer-to-peer network that is controlled by its users, not third parties.
We know why these user-controlled networks get acquired (or copied) by companies: because they work and they attract many users.
Some users want peer-to-peer networks that are controlled by users, not third parties such as Microsoft, Facebook, etc. It seems that corporations are also interested in such networks. But they just want the users, not the ability to exclude third parties (they are a third party).
What is important for these interested users is that Skype changed and how it changed, not why changed.
No explanation, rationale or excuse is a substitute for a peer-to-peer network that is controlled by its users, not third parties.
We know why these user-controlled networks get acquired (or copied) by companies: because they work and they attract many users.