Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

bloomberg.com

211–220 of 436 posts

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#211

The old Skype was perfectly usable. The new Skype sucks. But if not Skype then what? Needed: - VoIP for groups - Built-in screen sharing - Chat/messenger - One-click voice calls without the need to switch off camera every time (looking at you Hangouts Meet) - The ability to call or conference in a phone number. - Built-in file transfer - Free :)

Discord

Edit: The only thing it doesn't do in your list is call a phone number at the moment. Though, I heard about a bot that can make calls for you not sure if it works.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#212
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why did quality drop so much?

I find the CADT development model is surprisingly good at explaining most software engineering trainwrecks these days: https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html

This link might work slightly better for some people: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jwz.org%2Fd...

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#213
post #162
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jwz.org links are banned at HackerNews. Please remove.

> are banned what's the story behind that? (i'm not familiar with that domain.)

JWZ is not a fan of being linked to by HN.

JWZ redirects referrals from HN to an obscene image.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amusing, but the issues with Enterprise Software are far more complex than that. Having spent my career working with Enterprises of one sort or another, here are a few off the top of my head: 1. You are not the customer. With ad-driven products, we have painfully realized that if we aren't paying, we aren't the customer, and when something seems awful to us, the explanation often lies in the fact that the thing that…

>their needs are subordinate to the needs of the individuals and departments who are actually paying for it. Are you implying people are paying for dropped calls and poor performance as a feature?

But reading what I wrote, I see why you asked. Yes, sometimes there is a thing that is bad for the user and simultaneously perceived to be good for the person paying, like a lot of the ceremony you have to do to get anything to happen in JIRA.

But sometimes it is a question of different priorities, and I did not mention that above. Good catch.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't consider removing superfluous features a bad thing as long as the core features are working flawlessly. EDIT: Apparently they removed really useful features which is a bad development.

They removed the superfluous "detect/connect microphone" feature. Update: Wow so many upvotes, someone should create a webrtc startup.

:-) ... We're a WebRTC startup - https://daily.co - completely free WebRTC calls in Chrome, up to 50 participants in a call, free dial-in numbers in 25+ countries. Meeting recording coming later this month. Edge and Safari support soon.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#217
post #34

The article is about "Skype for Business". But let's talk about the Skype for consumers. They transformed a nice software in one of the most clunky and unusable and frustrating experiences ever. The UI is just that broken. The thing is that try to follow all the last shitty trends of development and webdesign, and the results are absolutely horrible. The new Skype "electron"-like interface for MacOS is the worst UI I…

I deleted it and reverted to an older pre-electron version. The one-page HTML user interface is painful to use. I just want to make cheap phone calls, not join a social network. Socialism sucks.

Socialism?!?

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#218
There's still an opportunity for Microsoft to fix this. They definitely have major problems with basic functional requirements at the moment (like reliably displaying messages that another person has sent to you in chat), but there's not really another offering out there with the brand associations that the Skype name comes with.

All they need to do to bring people back is simplify and focus on robustness of the key functions. However, I'm not sure there's much of a business model they could exploit in this way. Using Skype is free. I've used in for about 10 years and in that time I've maybe spent £40 on paid calling. That's not enough to sustain a high quality offering. It only works if consumer market is the entire focus, leveraging the strategies that the like of Facebook employ.

For these reasons, although it wouldn't be hard to fix, I reckon it won't happen. But who knows, Microsoft have done some things in the open source arena over the last five years. Maybe one day they'll run a product like Skype simply for the satisfaction of owning the world's best online calling service (and the money would surely follow).

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#219
Skype for business is not Skype, it's Lync with a new name https://products.office.com/en/skype-for-business/online-mee...

That said, the true Skype is not as good as it used to be. I kept using version 4.3 on Linux until the servers stopped working with it. The reason is that the new UI is horribly biased towards video calls, which I don't do often and surely not with friends. For them there is WhatsApp since it became available and every single person I know uses it.

Problems with the Skype UI, in case somebody from Microsoft reads these comments. This is version 8.20 Linux, which is a huge improvement over the previous main version (screen sharing works). The use case is talking or chatting with customers, small or medium companies (in the European way so small on the American scale). None of them had Skype for business, many use Slack.

1. When I start a voice call the chat is not opened by default. It should.

2. When I open it, it's a narrow column. The rest of screen is totally wasted. Maybe it's hoping that I start a video call, which I won't because I started a voice one. The chat should fill the screen, Slack like. The is no way to resize the chat, or they made it very difficult to find it.

3. There is a lot of white space around text, which I understand typographically but it doesn't allow me to see much back in the history unless I start scrolling, which I didn't have to. There should be an option for a compact mode. I've been tempted to open the Electron container (a zip), change the CSS, rezip and check if it works.

4. Messages used to have a visible timestamp. They don't have one anymore unless one clicks on them. This makes harder to find when somebody wrote something.

As a consolation, Hangout is possibly worse. The only advantage is that one can share a link to a group chat. Skype can't.

The result is that one customer of mine always used Hangout. Another one switched to Hangout for the group chats and we used TeamViewer when screensharing didn't work in Skype for Linux. I'm the only person in the team to use Linux (the others are on Macs) but everybody switched. That for whom thinks that supporting Linux is not important.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amusing, but the issues with Enterprise Software are far more complex than that. Having spent my career working with Enterprises of one sort or another, here are a few off the top of my head: 1. You are not the customer. With ad-driven products, we have painfully realized that if we aren't paying, we aren't the customer, and when something seems awful to us, the explanation often lies in the fact that the thing that…

>their needs are subordinate to the needs of the individuals and departments who are actually paying for it. Are you implying people are paying for dropped calls and poor performance as a feature?

The people experiencing dropped calls aren't the people who made the purchasing decision. The people experiencing poor performance don't have a say in the matter and are required to use the tool, and the people who made the purchasing decision are getting what they want out of the deal.
Post reply on HN