4 ms·

As above, I was on the Skype for Web launch team. While chat will probably work, as it doesn't have anything browser-specific, I am not sure video/audio calls

As above, I was on the Skype for Web launch team. While chat will probably work, as it doesn't have anything browser-specific, I am not sure video/audio calls will be reliable. Even if they work now, that flow is no longer tested or fixed if it breaks on Firefox. The downloadable video/audio plugin on Windows and Mac, supporting Firefox is the expensive part that the team likely stopped supporting.

lostgame 7y ago
It's said often, but this is why I love HN - when the folks who actually work at these companies can provide insight. Because what we are seeing certainly seems malicious - the idea that it can work by changing the user header looked, at least to me, as a swipe to Firefox, but instead, you're explaining that you simply couldn't guarantee support. Now, it would be cool if you could simply just state that on the page, instead of simply saying it won't work - but I do understand the desire to not present something with potential issues to the general public. Thanks for taking the time, here.
- godelski 7y ago
  People here aren't really asking for support. They are complaining that they are locked out. Specifically targeted. They get that an error might exist on an unsupported browser. What they are mad about is that they are explicitly locked out, and for seemingly no purpose.
- gregdoesit 7y ago
  I was on the team who built this, five years ago. I left Microsoft about that time ago. I don't have information on how and why decisions are being made now. Having worked at Microsoft though, if your team cannot guarantee that a feature works on a browser that uses some non-standard things, is a decision that product will make on how to proceed. Display a warning or just don't support? Perhaps there might be security issues in the future the company wants to avoid this way, knowing they could not patch it? And so on. Beyond speculation, I don't have much more to offer.
tinus_hn 7y ago
So it’s just like the native Skype client.
amaccuish 7y ago
So, I don't have this Skype plugin on firefox but changing the UA makes skype work? Presumably it's working now via WebRTC so I don't understand why they can't allow Firefox as well.

lostgame 7y ago

It's said often, but this is why I love HN - when the folks who actually work at these companies can provide insight. Because what we are seeing certainly seems malicious - the idea that it can work by changing the user header looked, at least to me, as a swipe to Firefox, but instead, you're explaining that you simply couldn't guarantee support. Now, it would be cool if you could simply just state that on the page, instead of simply saying it won't work - but I do understand the desire to not present something with potential issues to the general public. Thanks for taking the time, here.

godelski 7y ago
People here aren't really asking for support. They are complaining that they are locked out. Specifically targeted. They get that an error might exist on an unsupported browser. What they are mad about is that they are explicitly locked out, and for seemingly no purpose.
gregdoesit 7y ago
I was on the team who built this, five years ago. I left Microsoft about that time ago. I don't have information on how and why decisions are being made now. Having worked at Microsoft though, if your team cannot guarantee that a feature works on a browser that uses some non-standard things, is a decision that product will make on how to proceed. Display a warning or just don't support? Perhaps there might be security issues in the future the company wants to avoid this way, knowing they could not patch it? And so on. Beyond speculation, I don't have much more to offer.

tinus_hn 7y ago

So it’s just like the native Skype client.

amaccuish 7y ago

So, I don't have this Skype plugin on firefox but changing the UA makes skype work? Presumably it's working now via WebRTC so I don't understand why they can't allow Firefox as well.