6 ms·

MySpace, Skype announce partnership (2007)

213 points by timjahn 15y ago

Hov 15y ago
I know where you're going with this, but unfortunately the implication applies equally well to Google+ as it does to FaceBook. I don't see why it wouldn't.
city41 15y ago
Features alone do not a good product make.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- timjahn 15y ago
  Not dissing anybody. Saw the story linked to in the TechCrunch article and chuckled at it. Just fun to remember.
- hendler 15y ago
  It is reasonable to question Facebook's feature choices. A risk for both Google+ and Facebook is that because they are in a war over features; features which may threaten their own value propositions. Facebook as made changes to adapt to Twitter and done well. But Skype integration may not turn out to be forward thinking for Facebook. "Facebook Video Chat: Like ChatRoulette, but with real-life consequences within your relationships & social circles." - https://twitter.com/#!/robdelaney/status/88676143158407169 https://twitter.com/#!/robdelaney/status/88676143158407169
  - Apocryphon 15y ago
    Wait, why would video chat be such a big risk? It's just a different contact list.
flyt 15y ago
"Some pundits are complaining that the technology is not new, but that’s besides the point. Case in point: at MySpace we launched what Zuckerberg is announcing in 2007 (try googling “myspace skype partnership”), and MySpace also had one-on-one video chat back in 2004. The point is that people weren’t really ready for it back then—now is the time, and Facebook has the user base. The large user base (750 million) paired with a simple integration of arguably the best voice/video tech (Skype) is what makes this news." -Tom Anderson, founder of MySpace http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/zuckerberg-first-public-response-to-google-plus/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/zuckerberg-first-public-res...
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Tom gets it. One of the problems with experience is that you have, well umm, experience. It's the unfortunate ability to say, "We did video chat X years ago. Didn't work out, it's a bad idea." I've seen this type of thinking first hand. You must understand why it didn't work before, and what is different now. I can see people at MS saying, "The iPad will never work. We tried tablets w/o keyboards back in 2002 and everyone wanted convertibles. It'll never work." Little differences can be a big deal. Experience is not useful w/o the analysis to put your experience in perspective.
  - timjahn 15y ago
    Agreed. I love Tom's overall tone in that article.
    - bproper 15y ago
      I love that a 4 year old news story is on the front page of Hacker news and inspiring a deep discussion.
      - timjahn 15y ago
        History is full of deep discussions. ;)
  - 15y ago
jhuckestein 15y ago
It's a different feature. The skype button on myspace would bring up skype and require the other side to have a skype account. The Facebook feature runs in the browser and guides the receiving side through the process of enabling in-browser video calls. That said, I agree that Facebook's announcement is not that big of a deal.
- timjahn 15y ago
  On the contrary, I think it's a big deal. Facebook has unprecedented reach. Grandmas everywhere will now be playing bridge over video chat. :)
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    Does Facebook have group video chat now? Not even Skype proper supports that afaik.
    - timjahn 15y ago
      Good point. Analogy fail on my end.
    - jtbarrett 15y ago
      Just FYI, Skype proper (but not on facebook) does support group video chats as a paid extra feature now: http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/features/allfeatures/group-video-calls/ http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/features/allfeatures/group-v...
BvS 15y ago
According to this article it wasn't about video but free Internet phone calls. As Tom Anderson (founder of Myspace) stated on Google+ (https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts/g2zmxn1LmtX?tab=mX https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts/g2zmxn1L...) Myspace had one-on-one video chat back in 2004 but I guess without the help of Skype and without the necessary broadband penetration it wasn't all that useful.
- timjahn 15y ago
  Still blows my mind that they had video chat that far back.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    first time i saw video from camera being immediately rendered inside a window on computer screen in 1995 (it was in Russia where we were technically noticeably behind the West) It still blows my mind what video chat is still not ubiquitous, and that a company adding video chat feature is a matter to notice.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      Video chat isn't a technical problem, it's a social problem. I have multiple ways to video chat almost wherever I am, but I almost never want to video chat. When was the last time when you wanted to video chat but couldn't? That's never happened to me.
      - VladRussian 15y ago
        i guess that you're a Generation X-er, around my age, ie. ~40 years :)
        jonknee 15y ago
        I'm in my 20s...
        15y ago
timjahn 15y ago
Just noticed the title of this post changed from what I originally entered. I was unaware somebody was able to do this. Who has the ability? (I don't mind, just curious.)
- pilgrim689 15y ago
  It used to say "3 years ago" right? http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html That has some guidelines on titles and mentions that "the editors may rewrite it."... perhaps they didn't like that you used the number 3, and preferred 2007 because that has more meaning?
  - timjahn 15y ago
    Ah, oops. I promise I'll read the rules next time. ;)
snorkel 15y ago
Next feature announcement from Facebook: ghetto bling wallpapers
ericfrenkiel 15y ago
execution execution execution
- T_S_ 15y ago
  unwords $ replicate 3 "timing, execution"
haydenevans 15y ago
How many actual active users does myspace still have at this point?

213 points by timjahn 15y ago

Hov 15y ago

I know where you're going with this, but unfortunately the implication applies equally well to Google+ as it does to FaceBook. I don't see why it wouldn't.

city41 15y ago

Features alone do not a good product make.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

timjahn 15y ago
Not dissing anybody. Saw the story linked to in the TechCrunch article and chuckled at it. Just fun to remember.
hendler 15y ago
It is reasonable to question Facebook's feature choices. A risk for both Google+ and Facebook is that because they are in a war over features; features which may threaten their own value propositions. Facebook as made changes to adapt to Twitter and done well. But Skype integration may not turn out to be forward thinking for Facebook. "Facebook Video Chat: Like ChatRoulette, but with real-life consequences within your relationships & social circles." - https://twitter.com/#!/robdelaney/status/88676143158407169 https://twitter.com/#!/robdelaney/status/88676143158407169
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  Wait, why would video chat be such a big risk? It's just a different contact list.

flyt 15y ago

"Some pundits are complaining that the technology is not new, but that’s besides the point. Case in point: at MySpace we launched what Zuckerberg is announcing in 2007 (try googling “myspace skype partnership”), and MySpace also had one-on-one video chat back in 2004. The point is that people weren’t really ready for it back then—now is the time, and Facebook has the user base. The large user base (750 million) paired with a simple integration of arguably the best voice/video tech (Skype) is what makes this news." -Tom Anderson, founder of MySpace http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/zuckerberg-first-public-response-to-google-plus/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/zuckerberg-first-public-res...

kenjackson 15y ago
Tom gets it. One of the problems with experience is that you have, well umm, experience. It's the unfortunate ability to say, "We did video chat X years ago. Didn't work out, it's a bad idea." I've seen this type of thinking first hand. You must understand why it didn't work before, and what is different now. I can see people at MS saying, "The iPad will never work. We tried tablets w/o keyboards back in 2002 and everyone wanted convertibles. It'll never work." Little differences can be a big deal. Experience is not useful w/o the analysis to put your experience in perspective.
- timjahn 15y ago
  Agreed. I love Tom's overall tone in that article.
  - bproper 15y ago
    I love that a 4 year old news story is on the front page of Hacker news and inspiring a deep discussion.
    - timjahn 15y ago
      History is full of deep discussions. ;)
- 15y ago

jhuckestein 15y ago

It's a different feature. The skype button on myspace would bring up skype and require the other side to have a skype account. The Facebook feature runs in the browser and guides the receiving side through the process of enabling in-browser video calls. That said, I agree that Facebook's announcement is not that big of a deal.

timjahn 15y ago
On the contrary, I think it's a big deal. Facebook has unprecedented reach. Grandmas everywhere will now be playing bridge over video chat. :)
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  Does Facebook have group video chat now? Not even Skype proper supports that afaik.
  - timjahn 15y ago
    Good point. Analogy fail on my end.
  - jtbarrett 15y ago
    Just FYI, Skype proper (but not on facebook) does support group video chats as a paid extra feature now: http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/features/allfeatures/group-video-calls/ http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/features/allfeatures/group-v...

BvS 15y ago

According to this article it wasn't about video but free Internet phone calls. As Tom Anderson (founder of Myspace) stated on Google+ (https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts/g2zmxn1LmtX?tab=mX https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts/g2zmxn1L...) Myspace had one-on-one video chat back in 2004 but I guess without the help of Skype and without the necessary broadband penetration it wasn't all that useful.

timjahn 15y ago
Still blows my mind that they had video chat that far back.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  first time i saw video from camera being immediately rendered inside a window on computer screen in 1995 (it was in Russia where we were technically noticeably behind the West) It still blows my mind what video chat is still not ubiquitous, and that a company adding video chat feature is a matter to notice.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    Video chat isn't a technical problem, it's a social problem. I have multiple ways to video chat almost wherever I am, but I almost never want to video chat. When was the last time when you wanted to video chat but couldn't? That's never happened to me.
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      i guess that you're a Generation X-er, around my age, ie. ~40 years :)
      - jonknee 15y ago
        I'm in my 20s...
      - 15y ago

timjahn 15y ago

Just noticed the title of this post changed from what I originally entered. I was unaware somebody was able to do this. Who has the ability? (I don't mind, just curious.)

pilgrim689 15y ago
It used to say "3 years ago" right? http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html That has some guidelines on titles and mentions that "the editors may rewrite it."... perhaps they didn't like that you used the number 3, and preferred 2007 because that has more meaning?
- timjahn 15y ago
  Ah, oops. I promise I'll read the rules next time. ;)

snorkel 15y ago

Next feature announcement from Facebook: ghetto bling wallpapers

ericfrenkiel 15y ago

execution execution execution

T_S_ 15y ago
unwords $ replicate 3 "timing, execution"

haydenevans 15y ago

How many actual active users does myspace still have at this point?