Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead • Hacker News Board

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#251

Post by dpacmittal » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 2:44 AM UTC

How about they start by focusing on better linux and OSX compatibility. Skype is horribly broken right now. Linux client hasn't been updated in 3 years:

http://community.skype.com/t5/Linux/Why-is-Skype-on-Linux-st...

http://thevarguy.com/open-source-application-software-compan...

Also, I added $10 skype credit a while back when I needed to make few international phone calls. I used about $3 of it. The rest $7 was in my account for a while and then it disappeared. What's the reasoning behind that? It's totally unacceptable to have credits disappear like that. In that same period I added $10 to Viber as well and I still have $8 remaining on it even after 1.5 years.

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#252

Post by option_greek » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 3:56 AM UTC

0x0 wrote: post #211

kough wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was forced to use Lync (due to an acquisition) in 2014 it was absolutely fucking terrible. The OS X client failed to report online status correctly, couldn't participate in most group chats or video or audio calls, and crashed regularly. Also weirdly non-native UI. And, no linux client to speak of - for a startup like the one I worked for where many devs used linux, that was a nonstarter. Has the story improve…

LOL, "lync.exe" a.k.a. "Skype for Business". 1. The worst brand management this side of 1984. "Skype for Business" has nothing to do with Skype and the .exe is still called "lync.exe" 2. SDK: Trying to use the C# SDK for even simple tasks leaves your app deadlocking or spinning 100% CPU in threads you didn't create or throwing native exceptions that doesn't make any sense as they are referencing raw hex 0x12345678 po…

+1 for pointing out the useless slow grinding garbage this lync-skype chimera is.

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#253

Post by yuhong » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 4:15 AM UTC

spdustin wrote: post #223

0x0 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL, "lync.exe" a.k.a. "Skype for Business". 1. The worst brand management this side of 1984. "Skype for Business" has nothing to do with Skype and the .exe is still called "lync.exe" 2. SDK: Trying to use the C# SDK for even simple tasks leaves your app deadlocking or spinning 100% CPU in threads you didn't create or throwing native exceptions that doesn't make any sense as they are referencing raw hex 0x12345678 po…

Microsoft products are filled with references left behind by what I can only assume to be developers who were just hoping to get on a different product team after their next review. SharePoint's virtual path for its SOAP services is "_vti_bin". VTI = Vermeer Technologies Incorporated, the makers of FrontPage and the FrontPage Server Extensions. Then there was Groove (brought in Ray Ozzie's luggage) that was renamed S…

Until recently, the Sysinternals executables was signed with a Microsoft certificate but the drivers inside Process Explorer was still signed under the old pre-acquisition certificate (I think they actually even renewed it too)!

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#254

Post by douche » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 5:02 AM UTC

0x0 wrote: post #211

kough wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was forced to use Lync (due to an acquisition) in 2014 it was absolutely fucking terrible. The OS X client failed to report online status correctly, couldn't participate in most group chats or video or audio calls, and crashed regularly. Also weirdly non-native UI. And, no linux client to speak of - for a startup like the one I worked for where many devs used linux, that was a nonstarter. Has the story improve…

LOL, "lync.exe" a.k.a. "Skype for Business". 1. The worst brand management this side of 1984. "Skype for Business" has nothing to do with Skype and the .exe is still called "lync.exe" 2. SDK: Trying to use the C# SDK for even simple tasks leaves your app deadlocking or spinning 100% CPU in threads you didn't create or throwing native exceptions that doesn't make any sense as they are referencing raw hex 0x12345678 po…

That SDK is just awful. The sample applications don't even compile, and the documentation is woeful. Tends to make the Lync client leak memory like a sieve, to boot - which is loads of fun, since there is no way to ensure that anything gets cleaned up properly, not an IDisposable in sight.

If it wasn't such a huge PITA to find a compatible SIP library, or write one from scratch, I'd have dumped it long ago. Sadly, I've had to do enough with it that I'm probably an "expert" at it now...

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#255

Post by douche » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 5:07 AM UTC

click170 wrote: post #247

carlosnunez wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used and help maintain Lync and OCS, its predecessor. Both were significantly more bloated, difficult to navigate and laggy than Slack is. Additionally, you need SO MUCH infrastructure to support a proper Lync deployment, especially if you want video, voice and PBX. (Yes, Lync comes with its own PBX.) Lync 2013 was even worse! The message window was laggy in typing words out of the box and every UI animation was…

I'm curious about how you found yourself in a position of both hating a piece of software and having to defend the decision to use it. Why did you have to defend something you hated? Where I work if something doesnt have an advocate, it stops being a product offering.

Just a guess, but probably the sunk cost fallacy. Lync licensing is not cheap, and once you've put in the time to buy it, provision the ridiculous amounts of hardware necessary to run it, deploy it, push the client to end-users, train up on how to use it, it represents a significant investment.

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#256

Post by douche » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 5:09 AM UTC

orf wrote: post #242

Negative1 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Unless Microsoft rebuilds Skype for the ground up" This. This exactly. Is it really unbelievable to assume Microsoft wouldn't attempt to build their own IRC+ clone and save a few billion while they are at it? I do agree with you, Slack is much better than Skype, but I would add that Lync is just as good. I went from Lync to Slack (after changing jobs) and I would say that Lync not only works just as well but has mor…

You want to really torture yourself? You want to stare into the abyss? Try making a Lync bot. Anyone who was tried will understand what I say when I say it's the worst thing you can possibly experience as a programmer.

+1. This is my life

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#257

Post by josh2600 » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 5:09 AM UTC

dave2000 wrote: post #193

brenschluss wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does 'read' in a Slack context mean, though? If you scroll past it quickly, is it read? If you accidentally open your Slack window, is it read? A 'read' notification would just be a misleading user experience.

Read in the way a Facebook messenger message or a hangout message is read; you've got the "channel" open and the message is visible or is above the visible one. Clearly it's impossible to know whether a message has actually been read by a human but there Facebook/hangouts solution is almost perfect.

It's not visibility, it's focus (at least on desktop). If you don't click a messenger box, it will display the message but not acknowledge it as read (on the desktop client, on mobile it works based on whether the message is displayed while the app is open).

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#258

Post by ec109685 » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 5:55 AM UTC

gshulegaard wrote: post #36

chollida1 wrote: post #7

I wonder if the outcome would have been different if Slack was incorporated outside of the US where Microsoft could use some of its non domiciled cash on the acquisition? http://www.ibtimes.com/microsoft-admits-keeping-92-billion-o... Also interesting to think that Slack could be worth so much. Look at ICQ, Microsoft instant messenger, etc. It seems as though slack like tools get eclipsed every 5-10 years as a new ge…

> It seems as though slack like tools get eclipsed every 5-10 years as a new generation comes along with a new favorite tool. You've definitely got a point there. Although I do want to mention that part of the reason Slack eclipsed other tools was, in part, its Websocket based protocol. They have created a fairly complete unified messaging application because of it (IMO). They were the first movers in the area. I don…

What did web socket have to do with their rise?

They won't support p2p encryption because server side search wouldn't be possible.

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#259

Post by yuhong » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 6:01 AM UTC

reitanqild wrote: post #10

> Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and CEO Satya Nadella were among those unconvinced by the idea, with Gates pushing instead to add more features into Skype to make it more competitive with Slack in the business market, our source says. I'd say fix it first. Somehow the Skype name has gone from being an asset to being a liability to the point where I cannot understand why they renamed Lync to "Skype for business".

I wonder if Bill Gates and Satya Nadella actually knows about the problems in Skype.

Re: Source: Microsoft mulled an $8B bid for Slack, will focus on Skype instead

#260

Post by area51org » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 6:54 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #230

area51org wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between the two I'd pick Slack, hands-down. Lync is awful, and I have to use it—so I use the Adium with the OCS plugin instead. It doesn't do audio calls or video, but it is stable and fast. (For video, hangouts are much better anyway.) Slack? I use it, but I don't see the attraction. It's just another chat client with a couple of cute features. I'm really not clear on why the world seems so enamored with something t…

It's a huge practical improvement over IRC. The integrations are turn-key for most things, very powerful, and deep search integration, so it can become your one-stop shop for things. It realistically has the possibility to replace Dropbox and email for internal collaboration. The channels, groups, and notifications preferences make it possible to structure your team for maximum signal to noise across both desktop and…

Every feature you mention was available in the '90s. I'm not saying Slack is bad, just that it's nothing impressive or innovative. The only surprising thing about it is that someone didn't make it sooner.