7 ms·

Microsoft have driven Skype into the ground. How they can release something this childish and terrible, yet also have the "Skype for Business" brand I don't und

Microsoft have driven Skype into the ground. How they can release something this childish and terrible, yet also have the "Skype for Business" brand I don't understand. If this had been released as "Skype for Fun" or "Skype for Kids" I'd almost understand. But trying to force users into this hideous mess is very frustrating, Skype was a dependable, if bloated app. Now I fear getting messages via it, it's so horrible. Nothing will happen though. We're all upset, but Microsoft isn't going to roll back an upgrade/decision of this magnitude.

B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
Microsoft wants to be Oracle instead of Oracle (as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iznogoud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iznogoud used to put it), and will not be deterred.
blibble 9y ago
skype for business is by far the worst piece of software I've used in the past 5 years things randomly don't work (e.g. video in groups, picture whiteboards in groups), there's an inability to turn off highlights in group messages, and my machine locks up when a voice call comes in (because the skype client is using 4gb of RAM and windows has swapped it out) only the MS group chat software comes close to being that awful, that feels like an intern's first C# app
- karrotwaltz 9y ago
  The worst part about "Skype for business" is that it replaced Lync, which was much better IMO. It was simple but effective, and I don't remember having any kind of problem with it
  - me_again 9y ago
    Skype for Business IS Lync, mildly rebranded. The executable is even called lync.exe...
    - wvenable 9y ago
      Except it now looks and works crap now. I'm still on the old Lync client at my office even though many people have "upgraded" to skype for business. At some point my hand will be forced and I will be annoyed.
      - dijit 9y ago
        At least copy and paste is more sane in Skype for business than Lync
userbinator 9y ago
We're all upset, but Microsoft isn't going to roll back an upgrade/decision of this magnitude. Not unless there is sufficient opposition --- and by "sufficient", I mean almost everyone refusing to upgrade or suddenly moving to an alternative. Flashy dumbed-down UIs seem to be the "modern" trend now. I hope it starts going back in the other direction, but sadly I doubt that will happen...
- tajen 9y ago
  I can't recall any software company who rolled back an upgrade. UI upgrades take a lot of resources and overhaul, they're also UX-tested, involve marketing ops, etc: If they haven't got the message before, companies prefer to risk dying than cancelling their attempt to pivot. Look at Ubuntu's Unity. Apple's emoji bar. Microsoft's Windows 8.1 tiles.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Ubuntu is moving back to the Gnome shell, I think. So sometimes companies do get the message. (Although I personally like Unity, so the change is going to be a bit annoying.)
    - emilsedgh 9y ago
      But not because people want them to go back. They are going back because Ubuntu is investing less and less into desktop and consumer products and more into enterprises.
  - mathw 9y ago
    I consider Windows 10 to represent a significant step back from the Windows 8 UI ideas on Microsoft's part. Windows 10 makes a genuine effort to come to a system which can adapt for touch and non-touch UIs, rather than just using the former all the time.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Two of these three examples were completely or partially rolled back.
eigenvector 9y ago
Both my employer (120,000 employees) and our main contractor (20,000 employees) use Skype for Business. By use, I mean we've purchased it and deployed it to every employee in the world. It's never worked, ever, for anything. Not for audio, not for screen sharing, not for chat. I now decline all meeting requests that rely on Skype for Business for some essential part of the meeting.
- apapli 9y ago
  We are a 40 person organisation and use S4B via our Office365 subscription. It works perfectly. That said, being in Australia we don't have Microsoft-provided telephony in it, nor do we have any requirement for hunt groups and so forth. All our staff use their mobiles to talk, so Skype is purely used for teleconferences and video chats. Enterprise telephony is a weird space right now - Microsoft ought to emerge the winner eventually with their broader stack proposition, especially when compared with most other vendors that try to stick in their bloatware or poorly written software. But gee it is a painful and slow transition to observe from the sidelines. Just my 2c. :)
  - locusm 9y ago
    Serious question - what is so compelling about S4B. Competition is very healthy in that space, last time I looked at Lync etc it was seriously lacking.
    - apapli 9y ago
      It's just the convenience that is compelling. If you already use Office365 the integration with outlook for web (and desktop for that matter, which I rarely use) is really neat and for the most part "just works". I've got some seriously non technical people in the business who find it super easy to now arrange a conference call, when previously they would be using their iPhone on speakerphone to merge calls.
- user5994461 9y ago
  I use audio calls, video calls or screen sharing almost every day. It works flawlessly and I despise every company that doesn't have Linq/Skype.

B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago

Microsoft wants to be Oracle instead of Oracle (as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iznogoud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iznogoud used to put it), and will not be deterred.

blibble 9y ago

skype for business is by far the worst piece of software I've used in the past 5 years things randomly don't work (e.g. video in groups, picture whiteboards in groups), there's an inability to turn off highlights in group messages, and my machine locks up when a voice call comes in (because the skype client is using 4gb of RAM and windows has swapped it out) only the MS group chat software comes close to being that awful, that feels like an intern's first C# app

karrotwaltz 9y ago
The worst part about "Skype for business" is that it replaced Lync, which was much better IMO. It was simple but effective, and I don't remember having any kind of problem with it
- me_again 9y ago
  Skype for Business IS Lync, mildly rebranded. The executable is even called lync.exe...
  - wvenable 9y ago
    Except it now looks and works crap now. I'm still on the old Lync client at my office even though many people have "upgraded" to skype for business. At some point my hand will be forced and I will be annoyed.
    - dijit 9y ago
      At least copy and paste is more sane in Skype for business than Lync

userbinator 9y ago

We're all upset, but Microsoft isn't going to roll back an upgrade/decision of this magnitude. Not unless there is sufficient opposition --- and by "sufficient", I mean almost everyone refusing to upgrade or suddenly moving to an alternative. Flashy dumbed-down UIs seem to be the "modern" trend now. I hope it starts going back in the other direction, but sadly I doubt that will happen...

tajen 9y ago
I can't recall any software company who rolled back an upgrade. UI upgrades take a lot of resources and overhaul, they're also UX-tested, involve marketing ops, etc: If they haven't got the message before, companies prefer to risk dying than cancelling their attempt to pivot. Look at Ubuntu's Unity. Apple's emoji bar. Microsoft's Windows 8.1 tiles.
- yorwba 9y ago
  Ubuntu is moving back to the Gnome shell, I think. So sometimes companies do get the message. (Although I personally like Unity, so the change is going to be a bit annoying.)
  - emilsedgh 9y ago
    But not because people want them to go back. They are going back because Ubuntu is investing less and less into desktop and consumer products and more into enterprises.
- mathw 9y ago
  I consider Windows 10 to represent a significant step back from the Windows 8 UI ideas on Microsoft's part. Windows 10 makes a genuine effort to come to a system which can adapt for touch and non-touch UIs, rather than just using the former all the time.
- majewsky 9y ago
  Two of these three examples were completely or partially rolled back.

eigenvector 9y ago

Both my employer (120,000 employees) and our main contractor (20,000 employees) use Skype for Business. By use, I mean we've purchased it and deployed it to every employee in the world. It's never worked, ever, for anything. Not for audio, not for screen sharing, not for chat. I now decline all meeting requests that rely on Skype for Business for some essential part of the meeting.

apapli 9y ago
We are a 40 person organisation and use S4B via our Office365 subscription. It works perfectly. That said, being in Australia we don't have Microsoft-provided telephony in it, nor do we have any requirement for hunt groups and so forth. All our staff use their mobiles to talk, so Skype is purely used for teleconferences and video chats. Enterprise telephony is a weird space right now - Microsoft ought to emerge the winner eventually with their broader stack proposition, especially when compared with most other vendors that try to stick in their bloatware or poorly written software. But gee it is a painful and slow transition to observe from the sidelines. Just my 2c. :)
- locusm 9y ago
  Serious question - what is so compelling about S4B. Competition is very healthy in that space, last time I looked at Lync etc it was seriously lacking.
  - apapli 9y ago
    It's just the convenience that is compelling. If you already use Office365 the integration with outlook for web (and desktop for that matter, which I rarely use) is really neat and for the most part "just works". I've got some seriously non technical people in the business who find it super easy to now arrange a conference call, when previously they would be using their iPhone on speakerphone to merge calls.
user5994461 9y ago
I use audio calls, video calls or screen sharing almost every day. It works flawlessly and I despise every company that doesn't have Linq/Skype.