Microsoft and Skype to axe world's most popular IM client early 2013(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Microsoft and Skype to axe world's most popular IM client early 2013
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/microsoft_messenger_kill_date/
78 comments
I don't disagree with you. Skype is ugly, bloated and has been crashing frequently since the last couple of updates on my computers.
The problem is: it works.
I tried to do a Google Hangout last night, and the plugin couldn't find my mic. Logged into Skype, it worked perfectly.
It'll be a while yet before someone really takes Skype's business. For now it's my #1 goto communication line as a remote freelancer.
The problem is: it works.
I tried to do a Google Hangout last night, and the plugin couldn't find my mic. Logged into Skype, it worked perfectly.
It'll be a while yet before someone really takes Skype's business. For now it's my #1 goto communication line as a remote freelancer.
This was the point I was going to make too. Skype is terrible, but yet it is still the best compared the competition.
Let's consider the competition:
- Live Messenger: It was the next best, now discontinued, but before that it was poorly supported, rarely updated, and had a ton of bugs. No external connectors (e.g. telephone networks).
- Google Hangouts: Browser only. No external connectors.
- Facetime: Apple ecosystem only. No external connectors.
- AIM: No video/voice chat. No external connectors.
- Cisco WebEx: Expensive.
I'm sure there are others. But in general this is a very unhealthy market with not a lot of competition. It has always been that way. We desperately need an explosion of innovation here.
Let's consider the competition:
- Live Messenger: It was the next best, now discontinued, but before that it was poorly supported, rarely updated, and had a ton of bugs. No external connectors (e.g. telephone networks).
- Google Hangouts: Browser only. No external connectors.
- Facetime: Apple ecosystem only. No external connectors.
- AIM: No video/voice chat. No external connectors.
- Cisco WebEx: Expensive.
I'm sure there are others. But in general this is a very unhealthy market with not a lot of competition. It has always been that way. We desperately need an explosion of innovation here.
The problem with Google Hangouts is that it's fragmented. The GMail client does have external connectors, in fact they're still free for Canada/US calling. But calling another person for a hangout still requires they have Google+, IIRC.
Google has a chance to destroy Skype with GTalk and hangouts, but instead they're suffocating it by trying to bundle it with Google+. I don't mind signing up for Google+, but I've given up with using Hangouts with my parents because they don't want to sign up for a social network.
If/when WebRTC hits mainstream, it's conceivable that built-in video chat won't matter anyway. If I can generate a URL and send it to anybody with a browser and start a video conversation, I don't need a heavy client like skype any more.
Google has a chance to destroy Skype with GTalk and hangouts, but instead they're suffocating it by trying to bundle it with Google+. I don't mind signing up for Google+, but I've given up with using Hangouts with my parents because they don't want to sign up for a social network.
If/when WebRTC hits mainstream, it's conceivable that built-in video chat won't matter anyway. If I can generate a URL and send it to anybody with a browser and start a video conversation, I don't need a heavy client like skype any more.
Google Voice is a thing, but as of today it is essentially a US and Canada only product. They really haven't improved it in what seems like years.
Google Hangouts works with apps too, not just a computer browser. I've been using it with my work team for about a year since we're often spread across the country and it's been amazing. We tried Skype, but it often didn't load the video feed.
It doesn't have a dedicated PC or Mac application like Skype does. Which is a big downside. Trying to keep a chat session open in a browser window or tab all day is surprisingly annoying as it is too easy to close the window/tab without realizing what it is.
There was a Google application called like Google Talk but that never supported video as far as I know.
There was a Google application called like Google Talk but that never supported video as far as I know.
Have you tried Jitsi with a XMPP account? Worked perfectly for me in the past when I needed video chat.
edit: Oh, missed your external phones requirement. You'd need SIP for that with Jitsi.
edit: Oh, missed your external phones requirement. You'd need SIP for that with Jitsi.
Skype is also the only reliable option for VOIP calling on Android, which is unfortunate since the Android Skype client is buggy and missing some obviously needed features. The alternatives (groove ip, sipdroid, csipsimple) are even flakier and/or require you to have an account with a reliable sip provider.
linphone works just fine.
umm.. Skype certainly has some usability problems, but "half of computer's resources"? Are you trying to use it on a raspberry pi?
Rhetorics. Of course I didn't eat half the resources, but was a noticable drain on the overall performance of some computers I was working on, and the UI of Skype itself was very unresponsive and freezed for seconds quite often.
The way they seem to be recruiting in the UK, I would speculate that they are going to re-write it.
I'm running Windows 7 and the Skype client is using 132mb of ram, that's with 18 chats open (of which 3 are group chats). Not sure if my usage pattern is typical, but I don't think 132mb ram is much, it's using less than about 6 other programs I have running.
I have never noticed any slowness with it on my Nexus.
Most of the Nexus devices and phone are power-houses. Skype app has improved a little but on cheap phones it is difficult to use (or at least that was my experience on a ZTE Android device).
I think you need to update your skype.
did you try skype on Windows 8?
there's no way to use it as an IM client on a Window (unless you install an older version)
Microsoft is on a roll of dementia.
Microsoft is on a roll of dementia.
You can dock the app to the side and it will occupy about 1/3 of the screen or so. Shortcut - win + ..
The Windows 8 multitasking experience is way better than any other tablet OS. And if you are on desktop, maybe you will ve to stick with the desktop skype. Btw, it is not old version, it is the desktop version.
The Windows 8 multitasking experience is way better than any other tablet OS. And if you are on desktop, maybe you will ve to stick with the desktop skype. Btw, it is not old version, it is the desktop version.
I think the Messenger client for Android launch as late as August this year, and to very little fanfare. At least Skype has established mobile clients. It's strange how Microsoft let the strong MSN Messenger brand slip.
iOS one was out in the first few months of the App Store.
So they do support major platforms quite well
So they do support major platforms quite well
Yes, but the MS Messenger Service loses money with no sign of an actual workable business model, Skype at least generates revenue.
"Merging" the two gives Microsoft a way out of Messenger without losing too much face.
"Merging" the two gives Microsoft a way out of Messenger without losing too much face.
MS Messenger is actually the foundation for their Enterprise level Unified Communications offering.
It will be interesting if that client also gets the axe in favour of Skype, or if they intend to keep it as a separate product.
It will be interesting if that client also gets the axe in favour of Skype, or if they intend to keep it as a separate product.
It may have been, but it's not any more. You'll never see them replace Lync with Skype.
Skype client should be axed instead.
Skype has a Win8 App
It does indeed. But have you used it? It is missing most of Skype's features and requires you to sign in using a Live Account.
Merging Live and Skype Accounts is a problem for me personally since I want to use Skype on insecure WiFi (and obviously my Live account is also an e-mail account).
Merging Live and Skype Accounts is a problem for me personally since I want to use Skype on insecure WiFi (and obviously my Live account is also an e-mail account).
What's the problem? As long as your terminal is secure, the channel should be safe even over insecure Wifi, since the Skype client has a copy of the certificate of the server and can therefore authenticate it.
and you cannot use it on desktop mode. So, IMing and working on something else at the same time? impossible.
Microsoft trying to shove the tablet experience on the desktop is going to hurt them big time. Now they kill MSN messenger, all latin america will be very sad, they still use that software down there.
Microsoft trying to shove the tablet experience on the desktop is going to hurt them big time. Now they kill MSN messenger, all latin america will be very sad, they still use that software down there.
Have you tried Win + .?
It docks the windows 8 app to side. You can chat away with skype by doing so.
It docks the windows 8 app to side. You can chat away with skype by doing so.
I always seem to forget about this feature. I just installed the Skype Win8 App last night and spent the whole time switching screens. I just tried Win + . and it made the experience a lot better.
I don't have a Surface (yet) but I bet that feature alone makes it worth it for multi-taskers.
I don't have a Surface (yet) but I bet that feature alone makes it worth it for multi-taskers.
PSA: you accomplish the same on a Surface (or other Win8/RT tablet) by either
a) swiping from the top edge to the left or right (current app)
b) drag an app out of the switcher to an edge
[These also technically work with a mouse; but far more convenient with touch]
a) swiping from the top edge to the left or right (current app)
b) drag an app out of the switcher to an edge
[These also technically work with a mouse; but far more convenient with touch]
Skype also doesn't work on windows on 16 core PCs with hyperthreading enabled.
I still use MSN and I guess I don't really mind, MSN has a lot of history but it's a mediocre client and Skype is much better. I used to have 100s of contacts on MSN with ~50 online at any one time, now everyone that used MSN casually uses Facebook chat so I have... 2 people online (both of which are listed as away) and anyone that uses IM seriously seems to use Skype. It was inevitable.
Does anyone here still use MSN? They say it's the most popular client, but that doesn't fit my current experience, I guess China makes up the majority of that usage? Of the people I know that still use MSN they just have it running because why not, they don't actively use it. That's how I use it.
Does anyone here still use MSN? They say it's the most popular client, but that doesn't fit my current experience, I guess China makes up the majority of that usage? Of the people I know that still use MSN they just have it running because why not, they don't actively use it. That's how I use it.
I used to. Oddly enough in finance AOL instant messenger is still used a lot.
You are legally allowed to issue trade orders via AOL IM.
Bloomberg chat also allows you to put your AOL contacts into it and use it as your chat program.
These two things have helped to keep it alive alot longer than maybe it should have been.
You are legally allowed to issue trade orders via AOL IM.
Bloomberg chat also allows you to put your AOL contacts into it and use it as your chat program.
These two things have helped to keep it alive alot longer than maybe it should have been.
I use it to talk to my other half whilst in the office - that is it.
I'll switch to IRSSI over SSH onto my hosted server (I'll just run a local ircd) and she can use mIRC on her laptop instead. I have no intention of using another hosted service. It would be more reliable as well - Live Messenger reliability has always been crap.
(For ref, I do not use Skype, Facebook or any social tools).
I'll switch to IRSSI over SSH onto my hosted server (I'll just run a local ircd) and she can use mIRC on her laptop instead. I have no intention of using another hosted service. It would be more reliable as well - Live Messenger reliability has always been crap.
(For ref, I do not use Skype, Facebook or any social tools).
Just as an FYI, you can setup your own XMPP server in 20 min, and chat with people on facebook, gtalk, etc. www.prosody.im
Nope, not on Facebook you can't.
Unless I'm sourly mistaken, the Facebook Jabber server does not support s2s federation (by choice, obviously) and won't let users outside the Facebook Jabber server chat to those on it.
Cue walled garden rant.
Wha you can do is use an existing Facebook (Jabber) account on a regular Jabber client such as Pidgin, Adium and such.
No problem chatting with @gmail.com JIDs from any Jabber server though (well, besides the fact that Google's Multi User Chat support is pretty shitty in my experience, and that the two-way Jabber subscription process it bit weird in Google land).
I absolutely second the Prosody advice though, wonderful server and very friendly community and devs!
Cue walled garden rant.
Wha you can do is use an existing Facebook (Jabber) account on a regular Jabber client such as Pidgin, Adium and such.
No problem chatting with @gmail.com JIDs from any Jabber server though (well, besides the fact that Google's Multi User Chat support is pretty shitty in my experience, and that the two-way Jabber subscription process it bit weird in Google land).
I absolutely second the Prosody advice though, wonderful server and very friendly community and devs!
Haven't tested, but this says the opposite:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/10/facebook-chat-launches-xmpp...
This only describes the feature of connecting an XMPP client to facebook chat.
S2S federation means server-to-server. That is, use your XMPP account on your own server (such as prosody, as proposed above) to communicate with facebook users (on facebook's servers).
But that would go against fb's walled garden approach, so it's unlikely to come.
S2S federation means server-to-server. That is, use your XMPP account on your own server (such as prosody, as proposed above) to communicate with facebook users (on facebook's servers).
But that would go against fb's walled garden approach, so it's unlikely to come.
Thanks for the heads up. Might have a bash if I can be bothered. I already know how to set up IRC servers though (I was an op for a few years).
MSN is probably big in China next only to QQ. In India, msn messenger never caught up and people started with yahoo and then moved on to gtalk.
I think the reason China is excluded is probably because China gets its own customised Skype as opposed to using the standard client.
https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA10910/what-is-tom-online
https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA10910/what-is-tom-online
It is still very popular in western europe, aol and yahoo messenger never made any real entry here and msn took the whole cake. More and more people are moving out to skype and facebook, but I still have a big list of contacts there.
It was really popular over here (UK), but it died out fairly quickly when Facebook took over. My girlfriend is a teacher and she says that none of her students really knew what Windows Live Messenger was; kids today stick to Facebook, BBM and some use Twitter.
[deleted]
I actively use it to talk to my brother, 1/2 friends and for school group projects. It's super easy when I need to take a screenshot with the snipping tool and send to them. Not sure how easy that is to do in Skype (which I have but don't use).
[deleted]
Back in 2006, MSN Messenger was one of the world's best-known brands (its logo outscored Mickey Mouse!); in large parts of Asia and Europe it had become a verb -- "I'll MSN you"; and had some clever approaches to ads that got extremely high clickthroughs.
But then MS changed its name to 'Windows Live Messenger' to boost the Windows Live brand; underinvested in development and support; and focused its advertising on trying to compete with Google for search ads.
Ah well. The path not taken.
But then MS changed its name to 'Windows Live Messenger' to boost the Windows Live brand; underinvested in development and support; and focused its advertising on trying to compete with Google for search ads.
Ah well. The path not taken.
Can they optimize Skype so that it doesn't require 80MB-130MB just to run in the background? How can it require this much memory to run an instant messenger? Couldn't they delay load some of the features if they aren't yet being used (such as video codecs and audio codecs and other such features?)
Performance aside, here is what I hate about Skype compared to MSN / WLM: privacy.
(1) Skype logs you in to your last known status / on MSN you could choose before login (for example, "appear offline"/"invisible"). If I just want to check if a contact is online without my aunt start chatting, I can't.
(2) There is no easy way to block whole contact groups temporarily. When I'm at work, I don't want my friends to see me online; when I'm at home, I don't want to be contacted by co-workers.
(3) Say I'm chatting with Bob, and he goes offline just before I send him a last IM. This IM will be delivered the next time that we are both online. Even if one of us is "appearing offline"/"invisible". So we have a way of knowing when someone is hiding: just send someone a message when they are offline. Bah.
(4) Not related, but the delivery of old messages is awful across platforms.
What annoys me the most about these bugs (1-3) is that they seem so easy to fix, and yet nothing is done. Meh. Do you have similar frustrations?
(2) surely isn't a bug; if you have two subsets of contacts that you want to keep entirely separate why use a single account?
Skype doesn't make it easy to use two accounts. There is no "multiple accounts" feature where you can be logged in as one or both; instead, you have to log out and log back in again as the other. Sometimes, you might be on-call, so chatting with friends is OK, but you still need to be available to coworkers.
The problem with Skype is that it's totally closed. I use a multi-protocol IM client, with multiple accounts, so I can chat with people over AIM, FB, Google Chat, my work chat, and so on. Sadly, despite the fact that my work has Google Apps, which includes chat, they have standardized on Skype instead, so I need to have an entirely separate client, and log out and log back in when switching between work and personal accounts.
The problem with Skype is that it's totally closed. I use a multi-protocol IM client, with multiple accounts, so I can chat with people over AIM, FB, Google Chat, my work chat, and so on. Sadly, despite the fact that my work has Google Apps, which includes chat, they have standardized on Skype instead, so I need to have an entirely separate client, and log out and log back in when switching between work and personal accounts.
They kill the client or the protocol ? It's not really clear from the article. Don't care about the client itself (most IM clients suck anyway), that's why we have pidgin.
They're killing the client. Messenger accounts continue to work, and users can sign in to the Skype client with their existing Messenger credentials. Messenger will be run on the same infrastructure as before, not on the Skype peer-to-peer model. As far as I can tell, third-party clients should continue to work as well.
I thought the protocol used a central server for transferring contact information between users. If they shutdown those severs, then pidgin's msn implementation wont do us any good.
Found some more info about this at http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/micros... .Apparently the won't kill the servers too so there's still hope of continuing with pidgin.
I sign onto my various IM accounts from a variety of locations simultaneously (e.g. desktop at home, laptop in office, phone) and I find it infuriating that every protocol has a different way of handling that.
MSN: Sends incoming message _only_ to the last active computer (where last active seems to be defined by which computer last sent an IM or updated your status)
AIM: Sends incoming messages to all computers
XMPP (Gtalk): Inconsistent behaviour. I think the priorities set by various clients screw things up.
Skype: Does weird chat/history syncing between all your computers (this raises Privacy issues, as many times if I delete a chat on my desktop, it somehow reappears on my phone when I sign in on it. Also although it syncs the chat text, why not also sync whether the messages have been read or not, because at the moment if I sign in on my phone, it constantly buzzes for about 5 minutes as it 'catches' up on a ton of unread messages (which I've read ages ago on my computer).)
What's worse is status fragmentation. I've set my desktop and laptop to auto-away after 5 minutes, so people know if I'm there or if they can leave a message I'll read later. Run through this situation: 1) Signed in on desktop, go away. Pidgin sets Away on my accounts. 2) Some time later, turn on laptop. Adium sets all my accounts as Online. 3) Turn off laptop to go somewhere. Adium signs out and my accounts get left as Online. Desktop doesn't re-auto-away and so people think I'm there when I'm not.
None of these are ideal, and the only 'solution' I've found is to use a service like http://imo.im where their service only signs on _once_ to the accounts, but you access imo.im on any number of devices so it can make sure that every device has the same chat there. Problem with this is I don't like using web apps and would prefer to use native Pidgin/Adium if possible.
Any suggestions?
MSN: Sends incoming message _only_ to the last active computer (where last active seems to be defined by which computer last sent an IM or updated your status)
AIM: Sends incoming messages to all computers
XMPP (Gtalk): Inconsistent behaviour. I think the priorities set by various clients screw things up.
Skype: Does weird chat/history syncing between all your computers (this raises Privacy issues, as many times if I delete a chat on my desktop, it somehow reappears on my phone when I sign in on it. Also although it syncs the chat text, why not also sync whether the messages have been read or not, because at the moment if I sign in on my phone, it constantly buzzes for about 5 minutes as it 'catches' up on a ton of unread messages (which I've read ages ago on my computer).)
What's worse is status fragmentation. I've set my desktop and laptop to auto-away after 5 minutes, so people know if I'm there or if they can leave a message I'll read later. Run through this situation: 1) Signed in on desktop, go away. Pidgin sets Away on my accounts. 2) Some time later, turn on laptop. Adium sets all my accounts as Online. 3) Turn off laptop to go somewhere. Adium signs out and my accounts get left as Online. Desktop doesn't re-auto-away and so people think I'm there when I'm not.
None of these are ideal, and the only 'solution' I've found is to use a service like http://imo.im where their service only signs on _once_ to the accounts, but you access imo.im on any number of devices so it can make sure that every device has the same chat there. Problem with this is I don't like using web apps and would prefer to use native Pidgin/Adium if possible.
Any suggestions?
According to Ars Technica, the infrastructure will be the same. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/micros... This is more of a rebrand than an "axe".
The best way to spend any extra money saved on retiring MSN: open up the Skype API for devs to use. Adium is still the undisputed king of IM clients and with a proper Skype plugin for it I'd be happy again. Because let's face it, the Skype client is really, really bad.
Goddamnit yes. Waiting years for this.
Did anyone notice how Skype now shows ads on the their iPhone app? Far as I'm concerned it and live messenger have the same overall experience. I'd do away with Skype if I weren't using it to keep in touch with clients.
A truer description might be that the brand is being axed.
I believe that Skype has been migrated onto a messenger backend... so really this is a unification of the chat tech onto messenger, and the brand onto Skype.
I believe that Skype has been migrated onto a messenger backend... so really this is a unification of the chat tech onto messenger, and the brand onto Skype.
Surely they know something we don't. I expected them to go the other way by bringing Skype into Messenger.
Related: Can't seem to find Skype metro in windows store on release preview. Any way of running it here?
This fixes the "Messenger" branding issue.
Maybe this will help the uptake of xmpp.
Windows Live Messenger is XMPP - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/live/hh826554.aspx
It's even worse than facebook's approach to XMPP (I didn't think that's possible): Not only does it not provide server-to-server access, it also requires client tokens for OAuth that must be requested out-of-band, so any vanilla XMPP client can't make use of that endpoint.
I hope you're right and very afraid you are not. Neither Skype nor Microsoft are keen on utilizing open source.
I remember the times when official IM clients were lightweight and pleasant to use. Now you either have to go to third party / open source stuff (WTW, Pidgin, you name it), or just keep that GMail and Facebook tabs open.