Skype Blocks Customers Using OS-X 10.5.x and Earlier 267
lurker412 writes Yesterday, and without previous warning, all Mac users running Leopard or earlier versions of OS-X have been locked out of Skype. Those customers are given instructions to update, but following them does not solve the problem. The Skype Community Forum is currently swamped with complaints. A company representative active on the forum said "Unfortunately we don't currently have a build that OS X Leopard (10.5) users could use" but did not answer the question whether they intend to provide one or not.
Sorry but why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
So why should Skype's developers care about an ancient version of OS X? Oh, I know, because they are Microsoft, and we love to bash them here!
Re:Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Who owns skype now?
Let met know when Apple allows other Os's can use Imessage. That is when they get it fixed.
Re:For comparison (Score:2, Insightful)
No, there is no Windows LIfestyle that requires constant expensive support as the Apple Lifestyle does. Buy a new Mac and quit your whining, you pansies
Re:Not without warning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the posted on their skype.com blog that old versions would be discontinued in the ambiguous future date. It applied to all platforms. A few tech news sites picked up on it, but nothing major.
A post on their company blog is vastly different from notifying customers (especially corporate customers) that their paid service is going to become inaccessible.
People pay for the service, and shutting out older clients should have much more notification.
A proper response would be to sending out an email to ALL active accounts and their billing addresses notifying them of all the versions that were being discontinued due to the change. This would allow businesses (where software is sometimes tightly controlled) adequate notice to update all the machines and conference rooms. It would also allow users (who are now stranded) an opportunity to report that there are no viable upgrade paths, and a chance to use the balance of their accounts.
Instead it has become a PR nightmare.
Not to worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft will somehow find a way to destroy or abandon Skype like they did Zune, Nokia and other products...
Re:Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
You can then install a Windows version of Skype on the sandboxed OS.
No you cannot, 10.5 is the last OS level that can be loaded on PPC machines these are likely all non-Intel machines.
Re:Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously... Why would we go all out "Microsoft is evil" on this one? I mean, 10.5 is 6 years old at this point, there's been 5 major version updates since it came out, 2 of which have been completely free. Any computer who's maximum version is 10.5 is at least a decade old at this point. Frankly, I don't in any way blame MS for not supporting people on decade old machines.
Re:Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Skype is only partially peer to peer now.
Originally, the skype network used 'super nodes' to route connections when both parties were behind NAT (without the port forwarded) and could not open a direct connection to each other. Microsoft replaced these super nodes with dedicated servers when they bought skype, in order to lift the bandwidth constraints and increase the call quality for these routed connections.
However, On command (of the NSA or other LEAs), you'll find all of your connections routed via a microsoft server for the purpose of wire tapping.
They're all evil. Really evil. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we're really, really tired of software that uselessly, needlessly, requires the "latest and greatest" operating system for no good reason at all, that's why.
If devs need a feature in a new OS -- for instance, let's say you produce something that works with Mavericks (10.9) new multiple screen features, and that's its purpose in life... ok, then the user needs Mavericks and it's perfectly reasonable for you to say "gotta have it, period."
But, say, if you have something as vanilla as an image processing application, with no real need for anything other than memory allocation and file dialogs, and lets say you add, oh, I don't know, a new RAW file format to the application, then please don't tie that capability to the latest OS. Like Apple did. That's just fracking stupid and really... straight up evil. Sure, it can be a system feature, but for the sake of all that's good and has holes in it, what the FUCK does it need the latest OS for? Can a library not maintain a simple bloody entry point? Can an image loader not be coded wholly without calling OS esoterica? Of COURSE it can. I've written HUNDREDS of them under three different major OS's without EVER having to tie even ONE of them to an OS level. So WTF do I have to change my OS in order to get my Canon camera's images to load into Aperture, you pinheaded dipshits?
While I'm at it, Apple and MIcrosoft, stop leaving broken OS's in your wake. When you sell an OS, and it doesn't work the way it was supposed to, you should fix it. Yes, even ten years later. You said it would work, you took the customer's money on that basis, and if it fucking well doesn't work the way you said it would, you need to step up to the plate and make sure it gets fixed. For instance, my Mac mini, at v10.6 can't print UTF-8 via the standard printing system from the console. I need this to print Chinese. Why can't it do this? Because there was a compiler bug in the compiler Apple used to make OSX for the mini. Said compiler bug has long since been fixed. There's nothing wrong with the actual OS code, so ALL it would take is a recompile and an update. WHICH APPLE REFUSED TO DO. No, you don't suddenly get out of saying it could print if it can't print. What you get is a fucking pie in the face and you lose a customer because you can't fucking be trusted to sell shit that does what you say it does.
You want to release a new OS? Fine. Great, even. But FIXING BUGS IN THE NEW OS DOES NOT FIX BUGS IN THE OLD OS!!!!!!
And no, everyone canNOT upgrade to the new OS. Stability is a thing people actually need. Re-testing everything can be a huge job. HUGE.
How about this: Don't release a new OS until... ...IT BLOODY WELL WORKS by which I mean you have NO MORE BUG REPORTS WHATSOEVER for, say, a couple months. From anyone. And all previously reported bugs are fixed.
Now THERE is a radical fucking idea. With a process like that, maybe my Mini could fucking well print like it's supposed to. /rant
Yeah, Microsoft's just as bad (and linux is no slouch at leaving busted shit all over the place either although I have to note they didn't directly take anyone's money and make promises, implied or otherwise, in the process), but I've been under Apple's nasty little thumb for a while now, so, you get Apple rants. My Microsoft rants are really old now.
argh.
And hey, developers... what's the deal with no true peer to peer video comm app without third party dependencies? Ask the OS what the WAN IP is, email the bloody thing to your contact, contact enters same on other end, make connection. Would work fine for a very, very large number of people. Surely the video mavens out there can manage this? Video's not magic, it's just a bloody stream of packets like everything else.
And hey, while I'm at it... no, never mind. Never mind. Blood pressure. Need my pills.
Re:and linux aswell (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats what happens if you buy proprietary junk... I have some much older hardware phones which support SIP, and they all still work.
Re:Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
thank you for being part of the problem.
Closed source software problems. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone really surprised?
Apple decides to block updates of their hardware.
Microsoft decides to stop supporting old software.
You're using closed source software, so you're stuck.
That's the point of Free Software.