Skype 5 for Mac • Hacker News Board

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#51

Post by powdahound » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:10 PM UTC

We have been converting a lot of groups from Skype to HipChat [1] lately and I'm surprised how many of them cite the UI craziness as a major reason for wanting to leave the platform. Obviously good, consistent UI is important but it always seemed like the general public had an amazing ability to deal with crappy UI. Apparently there is a breaking point.

One thing that's particularly annoying about Skype's UI is that you have no idea how to help a coworker using a different operating system because the layout is totally different. Certainly doesn't help adoption.

1. https://www.hipchat.com

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#52

Post by panacea » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:14 PM UTC

jaxonrice wrote: post #23

for those looking to reinstall Skype 2.8 for Mac: http://mac.oldapps.com/skype.php?old_skype=37

See comment above before installing this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387945

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#53

Post by yamilg » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:14 PM UTC

Ha: I happen to love the new Skype version

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#54

Post by dguaraglia » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:17 PM UTC

technomancy wrote: post #42

I've been grumbling for a while that the Linux client was still on version 2.1, but I guess that's something I should be thankful for. (Though these days with the pidgin and gnome-do plugins I rarely interact with Skype directly; I don't know how people can work in chat rooms without nick coloring.)

What really pisses me off about the Linux version of Skype is that it doesn't support multiple telephone numbers per contact. You are stuck with either using the first number in the number list (not always an option), creating multiple contacts, or manually entering the secondary phone if the person you are contacting is not available on their first phone.

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#55

Post by serpent » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:17 PM UTC

A small remedy is the "Contacts" window (command-3) -- but it doesn't show waiting messages.

Thinking about a downgrade myself...

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#56

Post by Apocryphon » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:18 PM UTC

yarone wrote: post #34

Saw a tweet recently that summed it up nicely: "@anildash: Seems like Skype and iTunes are battling it out for the RealPlayer Memorial Award for Most Annoying Desktop Client App." If you remember RealPlayer, know Skype for Windows, know iTunes for Windows, you'll know exactly what I mean.

Why are the most essential programs in life the ones that always have the most obscenely bloated updates?

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#57

Post by lemming » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:19 PM UTC

emehrkay wrote: post #45

jwatzman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been unable to find an alternative that allows me, a Mac user, to do a video chat with my girlfriend, a Windows user, with no fuss when both of us are behind separate NATs.

Not even AIM? I find that hard to believe

It's absolutely true. I haven't used AIM much but a while ago I was trying to find an easy way to talk to my parents. When you want a hassle free experience, Skype so far is the only option.

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#58

Post by exit » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:38 PM UTC

do you think skype will come to its senses and revert their ui changes? or is it motivated by something else, like increasing screen real-estate for eventual advertising?

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#59

Post by raganwald » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:41 PM UTC

dguaraglia wrote: post #47

raganwald wrote: post #2

Skype has noticed that there is a discrepancy in quality between the two versions, and has decided to make the two versions more similar to each other. Unfortunately, instead of making the Windows version of Skype better, they’ve decided to fix the discrepancy by making the Mac version of Skype more like the Windows version. This is the number one reason that I prefer Mac-only products to products that are available…

I wonder if you realize that because the Macs have a "tiny market share" (as you describe it) it's just easier (cheaper, too) to produce a re-chromed version of your software rather than writing a completely new interface just for those users. Also, it's a plus for the users coming from the PC market because they don't have to relearn the interface.

I wonder if you realize that because the Macs have a "tiny market share" (as you describe it) it's just easier (cheaper, too) to produce a re-chromed version of your software rather than writing a completely new interface just for those users.

Considering that I wrote that companies might think it's cheaper, I'm going to go with yes, I realize that companies might think it's cheaper.

Likewise, it's also cheaper for PC Manufacturers to sell me junk PCs loaded up with BloatWare, yet I buy Macs. Just as it's perfectly reasonable for company A to make a product that user B finds repellant, it's also perfectly reasonable for a company to make a Mac product that sucks, and it's equally reasonable for a Mac user to avoid it at all costs. Neither party is wrong in any sense, any more than WalMart is wrong for not selling full carbon mountain bikes or Ibis Cycles (a specialty manufacturer who lays their frames up by hand in the USA) is wrong for not rebranding a Chinese steel MTB at a $500 price point.

It's a plus for the users coming from the PC market because they don't have to relearn the interface.

This is not as sound an argument as the one we agree on. Replicating the PC experience with your Mac product works if you have all these PC users at the office and one day IT removes their PCs and replaces them with Macs. Or if you have a company with Macs and PCs and IT support costs show up in a report somewhere, but Mac user frustration with a poor interface is "off balance-sheet."

But if someone owns a PC and decides to switch to a Mac, it's because he explicitly doesn't like the PC experience. Replicate the PC experience on his Mac, and you may find that he switches products as well as computers.

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#60

Post by elliottcarlson » Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 5:43 PM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #41

elliottcarlson wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protocol is proprietary - and in that case it is in Skype's best interest to maintain a similar look and feel throughout all platforms they support. This of course doesn't mean that they shouldn't be doing so much more on both systems - I just think in this case the requirement of having a similar application on both systems is necessary.

I'm not sure the second half of your first sentence follows from the first, but that's not all that important. OP said he'd rather use Mac-only apps, to which the response was "I guess you only want to talk to Mac users." You can very easily have (and there plenty of examples of) Mac-only apps that talk a protocol that also has Win/Linux/Android/iPhone/etc-only apps. You don't have to give up OS-specific design to ha…

My second point was more that Skype should improve the application for both platforms.

Certainly interoperability isn't an issue - the point is that it's in their best interest to maintain a common application interface. For example, I work at a company of 50 people and we have all variations of Mac, Windows and Linux machines running. By being able to support one interface internally it makes it a lot easier - as well as when certain users switch from their Windows machines in the office to their Mac's when working from home.