Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 436 posts

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#411

Post by monocasa »

dmitriid wrote: post #399
monocasa wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying make the nodes heterogeneous, and classify them into "actively participates in the primary functions of the distributed network", and "simply receives pushes that are related to me".

What you're saying is: make all mobile nodes clients to centralised servers ;) As a result, it's much easier to maintain a single architecture than two different architectures with rapidly diminishing number of desktop nodes taking all the traffic.

...no. It's totally fine to have a decentralized network with a subset of the nodes doing more work depending on what their users want. TOR works like that, PopcornTime did that, etc. Hell, the original Skype network did that to. Gnutella was pretty asymmetric as well.

> rapidly diminishing number of desktop nodes

Do you have any data on that? Or are you counting laptops here as mobile for some reason?

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#412

Post by jacquesm »

tinus_hn wrote: post #400
jacquesm wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note they settled for < $.1 / user and Skype kept happily rolling along.

$0.10 per non paying user is a lot of money and you don’t know what the rest of the terms were. Apple on the other hand chose the strategy you are advocating and they already lost over $400000000 and probably a ton of legal costs.

Check how much MS paid for Skype.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#413

Post by jacquesm »

dmitriid wrote: post #304
gowld wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is peer-to-Internet--peer worse connectivity than peer-to-DC-to-peer for UDP streaming? The peers aren't moving themselves to the DC to sit on their calls.

How will peer-to-peer internet work with mobile devices? Well, it won't: users don't .want their data plans and batteries drained.

I don't think peer-to-peer means what you think it means. It definitely does not mean more data or empty batteries.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#414

Post by risotto_groupon »

pvg wrote: post #369
wdmeldon wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing without the intention of treating it as a sport, but as an excuse to drink outdoors.

Somehow... that doesn't sound quite right.

I think they meant "apothecarily". As in, I play golf to self medicate.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#415

Post by magduf »

jodrellblank wrote: post #351
ConceptJunkie wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is proof that Microsoft is still a monopoly, because they can still force people to use software they don't want. Microsoft's biggest accomplishment in technology in the last 20 years is to teach everyone that software is horrible and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Windows, macOS and iOS quality usability and discoverability have dropped year on year, Linux usability has stayed abhorrent, every major website I use that has done a big redesign has made it worse for me with more focus on whitespace, style, hiding UI elements, and adverts than substance and usability. Google search experience has gone seriously downhill, Amazon's marketplace and search has increasing quality probl…

>Linux usability has stayed abhorrent

Linux usability is only abhorrent if you use Gnome (3). It's fine with KDE, Xfce, and others. I started using Xfce recently at work and it's great: usability is just what I expect (i.e. it doesn't do any weird UI experiments like Gnome3, Windows, etc.), it's stable and reliable, and discoverable since it was designed back when they thought discoverability was a good thing. KDE5 is pretty good too.

Stop using UIs that have been taken over by people trying to "revolutionize" UIs and you won't have the problems you're seeing. Linux has plenty of such UIs, but for some odd reason they're not the default setting of the mainstream distros.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#416

Post by benrbray »

jamie_ca wrote: post #189
ItsMe000001 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason people are on LinkedIn, FB, etc. I don't switch because all the people in my call list are on Skype. Also, I don't have any smartphone, only PC and laptop, so I don't even know or care what kind of apps for iOS or Android there are. ON teh PC I have to use "Skype Classic", which MS would like to get rid of (default download is the app for Windows 10). That app is unusable , and I'm tempted to add "literal…

I was gently ribbing my friends about their woes and complaints with Skype over the past few years (one in particular had repeated bouts of skype throwing up ads _with audio_) and commenting that my Mac client was just as usable as it's always been. Alas that that's no longer the case, we've moved all our casual chat (and voice, and video, and screenshare) to Discord and haven't looked back.

I left Skype for Hangouts as soon as they started putting autoplaying ads with audio in my calls. You have to be completely disconnected from the needs of your users to even consider doing such a thing.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#417

Post by braythwayt »

risotto_groupon wrote: post #414
pvg wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow... that doesn't sound quite right.

I think they meant "apothecarily". As in, I play golf to self medicate.

Hilarious, I want to snarf that!

But actually, I meant that it is apocryphal that salespeople have to play golf to close Enterprise Sales. It's more of a stand-in catch-all term for semi-formal socializing with the client.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#418

Post by pvg »

braythwayt wrote: post #417
risotto_groupon wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they meant "apothecarily". As in, I play golf to self medicate.

Hilarious, I want to snarf that! But actually, I meant that it is apocryphal that salespeople have to play golf to close Enterprise Sales. It's more of a stand-in catch-all term for semi-formal socializing with the client.

Right but it's not really apocryphal because apocryphal doesn't connote or denote stereotypical, proverbial, cliche, conventional wisdom, caricature, etc. Salespeople playing golf with customers to close enterprise sales is not some uncertain thing that has reached us through dubious sources.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#419

Post by dmitriid »

jacquesm wrote: post #413
dmitriid wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will peer-to-peer internet work with mobile devices? Well, it won't: users don't .want their data plans and batteries drained.

I don't think peer-to-peer means what you think it means. It definitely does not mean more data or empty batteries.

Wikipedia definition:

Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing or networking is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or workloads between peers. Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application. They are said to form a peer-to-peer network of nodes.

Peers make a portion of their resources, such as processing power, disk storage or network bandwidth, directly available to other network participants, without the need for central coordination by servers or stable hosts

====

How would you imagine a mobile device sharing its network bandwidth and processing power without sacrificing data and battery?

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#420

Post by dmitriid »

monocasa wrote: post #411
dmitriid wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is: make all mobile nodes clients to centralised servers ;) As a result, it's much easier to maintain a single architecture than two different architectures with rapidly diminishing number of desktop nodes taking all the traffic.

...no. It's totally fine to have a decentralized network with a subset of the nodes doing more work depending on what their users want. TOR works like that, PopcornTime did that, etc. Hell, the original Skype network did that to. Gnutella was pretty asymmetric as well. > rapidly diminishing number of desktop nodes Do you have any data on that? Or are you counting laptops here as mobile for some reason?

"depending on what users want"

What a nice techy answer. Users want an audii-video application that didn't suck their data plans dry by sharing their network bandwidth with other participants in the peer-to-peer network.

The moment you stop sharing your bandwidth and CPU you become a client-server application.

> Do you have any data on that

Any source you pick. And no, it doesn't include laptops. Just an example: https://searchengineland.com/report-57-percent-traffic-now-s...

Post reply on HN