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

421–430 of 436 posts

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#421

Post by monocasa »

dmitriid wrote: post #420
monocasa wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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: htt…

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

Even if there's no fixed server you're talking to? You seem to have this weird idea that you can't have a heterogenous peer to peer application.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#422

Post by mattmanser »

munk-a wrote: post #234
mattmanser wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enterprise software is a catch-all term, I worked on enterprise software and none of our customers were bigger than 500 users, most were less than 100. Enterprise software comes in a huge variety of quality.

Enterprise software is a nebulous term, I understand you hear a vague description of large software when you read it. Personally, to me, Enterprise is an entirely negative adjective, implying a software that spends more effort trying to do things it needs to do to support itself than it does trying to solve problems. Enterprise also carries the meaning (again for me) of terribly architected software, possibly designe…

Well, you can make up a definition yourself if you want, doesn't change the actual meaning though.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#423

Post by dmitriid »

monocasa wrote: post #421
dmitriid wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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: htt…

> The moment you stop sharing your bandwidth and CPU you become a client-server application. Even if there's no fixed server you're talking to? You seem to have this weird idea that you can't have a heterogenous peer to peer application.

1. When a client does not share its bandwidth its stops being a part of a peer-to-peer network. It becomes a part of a client-server set up.

2. The fact that the server is not fixed doesn't make it a peer-to-peer system. Example: when you watch a video on Youtube, the video isn't streamed from a fixed server. This doesn't make Youtube or whatever client you use to watch it peer-to-peer.

3. Where do these "no fixed servers" come from? Do they magically appear out of nowhere? No. They are some servers that people set up as servers, so this means that:

3.1. If Skype were to retain its peer-to-peer architecture, it would rely on Skype users to be knowledgeable enough to set up their servers (and to turn off peer-to-peer capability in the event of poor machines and unreliable networks).

3.2. The servers by necessity would have to be on desktop computers. Even in 2011 it was apparent that the desktop traffic was rapidly declining, as more and more people were switching to/using mobile. It means Skype would have to route more and more traffic through fewer and fewer nodes. Oh, and yes, those nodes would also see their data plans drain (as not everyone in the world is on unlimited plans). Or — surprise! — set up its own servers, which it did.

3.3. On top of that Skype was en route to ditching peer-to-peer even before MS acquisition, as peer-to-peer architecture had been the primary cause of at least two major (unpredictable and uncontrollable) outages that could easily be avoided with a centralised setup.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#424

Post by monocasa »

dmitriid wrote: post #423
monocasa wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moment you stop sharing your bandwidth and CPU you become a client-server application. Even if there's no fixed server you're talking to? You seem to have this weird idea that you can't have a heterogenous peer to peer application.

1. When a client does not share its bandwidth its stops being a part of a peer-to-peer network. It becomes a part of a client-server set up. 2. The fact that the server is not fixed doesn't make it a peer-to-peer system. Example: when you watch a video on Youtube, the video isn't streamed from a fixed server. This doesn't make Youtube or whatever client you use to watch it peer-to-peer. 3. Where do these "no fixed se…

You're aware that in the original Skype peer to peer network, there already existed supernodes that performed most of the heavy lifting that you could opt out of being promoted to, right?

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#425

Post by chx »

kwindla wrote: post #235
chx wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any semi-affordable, braindead easy to use, consumer product or something a person can rig up for good quality family-sitting-on-the-couch video conferencing, with good quality and reliable audio and video? Screw the semi-affordable part, I would pay several hundreds for that.

Our startup makes hardware that I think almost meets your description. We try to be excellent quality, super-easy setup, and easy to use: https://hardware.daily.co/pluot-tv But our target market is company conference rooms and home offices, so we might not feel quite "consumer-y" enough for you.

My use case involves a nine year old...

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#427

Post by dmitriid »

monocasa wrote: post #424
dmitriid wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. When a client does not share its bandwidth its stops being a part of a peer-to-peer network. It becomes a part of a client-server set up. 2. The fact that the server is not fixed doesn't make it a peer-to-peer system. Example: when you watch a video on Youtube, the video isn't streamed from a fixed server. This doesn't make Youtube or whatever client you use to watch it peer-to-peer. 3. Where do these "no fixed se…

You're aware that in the original Skype peer to peer network, there already existed supernodes that performed most of the heavy lifting that you could opt out of being promoted to, right?

Honestly, it's like talking to a wall.

Original Skype network existed in a world where mobile wasn't a thing.

Original Skype network went down twice exactly because of its architecture.

Original Skype network was already on its way out for the reasons I described several times above.

But sure, keep on believing that peer-to-peer can work in a mobile-first world.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#428

Post by erikb »

__jal wrote: post #310
erikb wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also buy an enterprise license. Just contact our very competent sales team for a quote and NDA.

But what about support? What if I deploy the phrase but experience unexpected results? I think we'll need the one named after your favorite expensive metal.

Of course with the Enterprise license you'll get support, meaning we offer you access to a free Web1.0 form, which is much better than an email address because it will completely ignore all your new lines, and we guarantee that we will answer within 24 hours that we are looking into it.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#429

Post by Pica_soO »

magduf wrote: post #408
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.

They're not a monopoly, and they're not forcing anyone to use software they don't want. There's a bunch of different options if you don't like Skype. I've used GoToMeeting in the recent past, and it worked fine. The problem is that people are just too stupid to look for alternatives to Microsoft products, and would rather complain than do something about it.

Oh, my, the customers got stupider. They could use the old skye just fine, but then the IQ sank - and its been rock bottom ever since.

Completely impplaussible that maybe those stupid people do not use the alternatives, because they suck even more? As in, they are non standardized, not easy to setup et etc.

Re: Microsoft Turned Consumers Against the Skype Brand

#430

Post by pasabagi »

magduf wrote: post #415
jodrellblank wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I think it's because if you start using Linux, you want to feel like you're using something new and high-tech. So the super-chrome UIs tend to win out.

I like my setup (i3wm), but it would be a horrible default. You have to read a manual to make it usable. Gnome is a kind of nice default - since everything looks modern and works out of the box.

Post reply on HN