Live data from Hacker News

Skype 5 for Mac

ignorethecode.net

81–90 of 113 posts

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#82
post #72

I remember when Apple released FaceTime, they said it'd be an open industry standard. See: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/apple_announce... and http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177819/Jobs_has_loft... Seems striking that it's been nearly a year and we haven't heard a peep about making it open. I would presume that if it were, it could be possible to bridge the two protocols or eliminate the need…

I just did some searching around to confirm this, because I had thought Apple released the spec back when they announced it, but you're right. Not a peep.

It sort of behooves them to release it... it would build support for FaceTime, which would make their phones more useful.

But it seems pretty certain they don't want other phones to be able to check that FaceTime box on their marketing materials just yet. I know being able to chat with my mom and sister who both have iPhones is one reason I'm considering buying one.

Seems low to announce it as an open spec if you don't have any intentions of opening it any time soon though.

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#83
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason iTunes seems to be essential is because there is almost no competition on OSX. Its a fairly horrible music player / media organizer compared to most Windows based software. I only use Skype to video chat with my daughters and it could be easily swapped over to Google chat + Video.

I'm not talking about just iTunes and Skype, though. I can think of several consumer programs that have become more bloated with worse UIs over time- AIM, Ad-Aware, Windows Media Player, Firefox... It seems rather inevitable.

Netscape was a classic too. I think Windows Explorer gets a nod as well.

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 P…

The problem with the Mac way is that its all consuming. You completely need to reorient and reshape your world view to get past the uncanny valley of your typical Mac fan. No matter how much you polish your QT / Gtk/ Swing UI it will not pass muster. On the Mac platform native apps seem to dominate - eg textmate vs jedit/emacs/vim, omnigraffle vs visio, parallels vs virtualbox / vmware. Which suggests that if you are a cross platform company you might have to cede the "high end" mac purist to a Mac specific app.

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#85
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?

Because they can get away with it... If there was better competition, (in an ideal world) the quality of the product would get better.

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#86
post #72

I remember when Apple released FaceTime, they said it'd be an open industry standard. See: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/apple_announce... and http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177819/Jobs_has_loft... Seems striking that it's been nearly a year and we haven't heard a peep about making it open. I would presume that if it were, it could be possible to bridge the two protocols or eliminate the need…

I would venture a guess that one part of FaceTime is actually the streaming protocol it uses - HTTP Live Streaming - which is indeed by Apple and already Open Source, and used by Google, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming

Edit: Spelling

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#87
post #30

I concur with the Skype 5 degraded UI. I also have a warning to others: After struggling to see the benefit of Skype 5, I wished to downgrade back to the previous version. However, I couldn't find a link anywhere on the Skype.com website for previous versions. As a result I searched on Google and found a third-party website offering previous versions for download ( http://mac.oldapps.com/skype.php?old_skype=37 ). I d…

The MD5 of the .dmg I downloaded from oldapps.com and the one I got direct from Skype via ascott's link are one and the same, though I suppose OldApps could've replaced it with a fresh version.

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#88
This change butts up against what I think is a fundamental, unsolved UI issue. Power users often don't realize how much if an issue "getting lost" is for novice users. Dave Worthington's Mom said[1] of the iPad:

    Well, it’s too touchy. Even though I’m better with it now… if you happen
    just to move your hand or something, you know, then all of a sudden you’re 
    out of what you’re in. That’s bad I think.
Notice she doesn't say "you go back a page" or "you've opened something" she says "you're out of what you're in". Anyone whose done some usability testing knows that users all the time get "out of what they're in" and are completely lost. And as the designer you are screaming in your head "You've just gone to your Account page! Just click the huge red "Back to my movies" link at the top of the page you ninny!" All. The. Time. Bless us, designers and users both.

I call this an unsolved problem because the options are equally bad:

1) Have one panel where you replace the contents frequently. Like a web browser. Unfortunately, as the article points out, prevents doing two things at once. And it forces people to learn often complicated mechanisms for navigating from state to state.

2) Show multiple panels at the same time. Takes up a lot of space, especially when there are lots of panels. Can be confusing at first.

3) Show multiple panels, but with the ability to close panels. This introduces the UI problem of reopening them. You can allow people to shrink/move around the panels independently, but that gives the user even more ways to lose something.

There are more advanced ways to deal with the problem. Zooming User Interfaces[2] were meant to deal with this somewhat... by giving everything a place and a context, they were supposed to allow you to maintain a good sense of where things are. But in practice, they turned out to be even more disorienting than a contextless browser window because navigation is less constrained and there are so many more places to get lost.

Microsoft, with WP7 does a little innovating here with their panoramic view control[3]. It puts UI elements in a context and lets you see a little bit of that context, without forcing people to do free navigation in a virtual space.

As for Skype, I won't argue that the new version is better for anyone, because I haven't seen the user testing. It's obviously worse for one person, but even objectively better designs are sometimes worse for power users who have deeply entrenched workflows in the old product. I do think there's a reasonable chance that they made the change because of user testing and that novice users are fundamentally happier in the new version. Again, I don't know because I haven't seen the testing.

But I will say that the OP is wrong about something. His problem is not the overall decision to integrate the video and chat into one window. His problem is that they hid the "open a chat for this person" button. If they had left the windowing exactly the same, but removed the "open chat" button from the user list and made you mouse over a video window to see it, he would've been equally lost.

The problem isn't that they made the wrong choice among flawed windowing models. The problem is they didn't do the work of making the UI work well within the constraints the windowing model provides. If they did extensive testing with a variety of users (including both novices who get lost, and advanced users who construct massive structures of windows to coordinate with dozens of people) they would've caught the video/chat bug.

[1] http://technologizer.com/2011/03/28/my-mom-reviews-the-ipad-... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooming_user_interface [3]http://www.kotancode.com/2010/08/12/preview-of-the-panorama-...

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#89
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 WAS the only option.

It's now no longer hassle free. Like the OP I find the new Skype wretched, now use it less and would jump at helping my contacts and I switch.

Question: How many Mac users are in the internal Skype testing program? I'm guessing not many

Re: Skype 5 for Mac

#90
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://mac.oldversion.com/Skype.html

be careful (see other comment in thread): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387945

Ouch. Thanks for that.

For people who haven't followed the link, 2.8 is available from the source at http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your-computer/maco...

Post reply on HN