Skype Reverses Decision To Drop OS X 10.5 Support, Retires Windows Phone 7 App 99
An anonymous reader writes Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard users recently found that Skype no longer works on their system: despite upgrading to the latest version they still can't sign in. We got in touch with the Microsoft-owned company and after two days, we got confirmation that a solution was in the works. "We have a Skype version for Mac OS X 10.5 users which will soon be available for download," a Skype spokesperson told TNW. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Windows Phone 7. In a support page titled "Is Skype for Windows Phone 7 being discontinued?," the Microsoft-owned company answers the question with a "yes" and elaborates that it is "permanently retiring all Skype apps for Windows Phone 7." Again, this isn't just old versions going away, or support being removed, but the apps themselves have disappeared.
WP7 was a limited platform (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I sort of feel for them but really what did they expect? This is what Microsoft does.
Re: (Score:1)
Like people stuck on earlier versions of Android or iOS are any different. All companies pull this shit, but it's a rarity for Microsoft. How long did they support Windows XP again?
Re: (Score:3)
XP lasted because Vista was an abysmal failure. When they finally bugfixed it by bringing out Win7 they at last had a viable alternative. Until Win7 arrived they had nothing to replace XP.
Re:WP7 was a limited platform (Score:5, Funny)
It's easy to forget the WP7 is a 1.0 product, but I do feel sorry for the people who have phones running that OS.
Remember, a lot of non-savvy people opted for WP7 based on the name of Microsoft. They will be shocked to find Skype missing.
Eh, WP7 is old. I don't think people will be that shocked. They should feel guilty for being so far behind the times, and give all their money to a smartphone manufacturer right away. /sarc
Re: (Score:1)
They stopped being shocked just after Microsoft announced there were no software upgrades from WP7 to the next version, that instead all they would get largely is a skin that made it look like WP 8.
1. MS intentionally hung a bunch of people buying their phones out to dry by giving a "no comment" when asked if WP 8 would be available as an upgrade to current phones.
2. Huge surprise that sales took a nosedive because all the phones with WP being sold were being deadended in a few months [several months afte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So much so that Skype could not receive incoming calls on WP7 unless the app was open (and not in the background).
Sounds like a feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
XP got extended for years, twice. What would be 'well enough'? Forever?
More than three or four years after they stopped selling it would be a good start.
But, yeah, I'm guessing that both remaining WP7 users are really upset about this.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that the only equipment that would be 'stuck' on 10.5 is on PowerPC, and the switch to Intel took place in 2006, I don't really care. Hardware has changed so much since then. Or have you tried using a G5 PowerMac in the modern world? Anything that's GPU accelerated (like browsers), HD video, or Javascript heavy is going to have issues.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
This. There is really *no* excuse to still be running 10.5, which has been unsupported for three years, on hardware that has been deprecated for eight. These are systems that are connected to the internet, for fuck's sake. That's just criminally negligent. We had this conversation the other day.
Microsoft is flipping Apple's support ecosystem the bird and encouraging bad behavior in Apple's end users. A dick move, IMO. The few idiots affected will be pleased in the short term, but what they really need is so
Re: (Score:2)
"Or have you tried using a G5 PowerMac in the modern world? Anything that's GPU accelerated (like browsers), HD video, or Javascript heavy is going to have issues."
8GB RAM and a 512MB HD GeForce 7800 plays HD video just fine in my dual-proc G5. Javascript is shit so I avoid it like the plague anyways, and GPU browser acceleration, what a fucking joke.
Has Mac EVER made an OSX app stop working? (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to be confusing two totally different things. Mac users had a perfectly working version of Skype. Microsoft broke what had already been working, by changing the network protocol and turning off the existing servers. Skype worked fine on Mac, then one day Microsoft starting rejecting EXISTING clients, and it's still broken today.
You seem to be confusing that vs writing NEW versions of applications for unpatched operating systems. Apple is saying "if you want the new features in new versions of the application software, download the OS update." What Microsoft did was cut off existing versions that worked just fine.
Another point that may be confusing if you're unfamiliar of anything outside of Microsoft's ass crack - updating OSX means downloading a free update, not paying hundreds of dollars and completely wiping the machine like you tend to do in Windows. My 2008 Mac Pro has the latest version of OSX and the Apple applications. I didn't pay them a thousand dollars to update the OS, the Office suite, the mail client, etc. I just click "yes" to install the free update. It's not that hard.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to be confusing two totally different things. Mac users had a perfectly working version of Skype. Microsoft broke what had already been working, by changing the network protocol and turning off the existing servers. Skype worked fine on Mac, then one day Microsoft starting rejecting EXISTING clients, and it's still broken today.
You seem to be confusing that vs writing NEW versions of applications for unpatched operating systems. Apple is saying "if you want the new features in new versions of the application software, download the OS update." What Microsoft did was cut off existing versions that worked just fine.
Another point that may be confusing if you're unfamiliar of anything outside of Microsoft's ass crack - updating OSX means downloading a free update, not paying hundreds of dollars and completely wiping the machine like you tend to do in Windows. My 2008 Mac Pro has the latest version of OSX and the Apple applications. I didn't pay them a thousand dollars to update the OS, the Office suite, the mail client, etc. I just click "yes" to install the free update. It's not that hard.
The upgrades from Leopard were (and are) not free. They were not thousand-dollar affairs, but the latest few iterations of OS X .x releases being free constitutes a switch in policy from Apple.
Utterly and completely false. I paid $0 (Score:2)
That's completely false. You just made that up out of thin air.
Customers can, as I did, upgrade from Leopard (2007) to the newest version at a cost of $0.
Upgrading from Vista to Windows 8.1 would cost $120 - $320. (Plus the cost of upgrades to Outlook, etc.)
Customers could also choose to upgrade at each step, paying $30, $20, and $0 for Mac - a total of $50.
With Windows, the analogous path would be Vista - Win7 - Win8 - Win8, which could cost over $800, depending on which edition of Windows. In what world
So free is more than $1,299 now? (Score:3)
Oh, so you're saying Apple's upgrade prices, which range from free to $30, are more than the $1,299 / year that Red Hat charges?
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/s... [redhat.com]
Please return to first grade.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'll try that reasoning at a restaurant sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
"Microsoft broke what had already been working, by changing the network protocol and turning off the existing servers."
If they have, then how can you explain that Skype on my old Symbian E72 still works (tested it today)? The installe, which I kept of course - never trust companies to keep such things around - is from 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple, MS does not reject its attempt to connect to a Skype server :)
Re: (Score:2)
My 2008 Mac Pro has the latest version of OSX and the Apple applications.
My 2006 Macbook hasn't been eligible for an OS upgrade since Lion (3 versions ago). To upgrade to the latest OS means buying a new Macbook (Air) at or around $1000 with tax.
Meanwhile I can still purchase the full latest version of Windows for that computer for $120-200 depending on edition. I'd bet that any Intel version of Windows Microsoft releases in the next 10, possibly 15 years will still run on it.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'd bet that any Intel version of Windows Microsoft releases in the next 10, possibly 15 years will still run on it.
I'll take that bet. With just 1-2 GB of RAM, the CURRENT version of Windows will install, but not really run, on it.
$10 says the next version won't even install?
Re: Has Mac EVER made an OSX app stop working? (Score:2)
Windows 8 has been optimized to run faster in most benchmarks than Windows 7. I am sure this trend will reverse itself eventually but for now I'll take your bet.
Re: (Score:2)
For clarification, the system requirements for Windows 9 developer preview are already known, so the "next version of Windows" for which we don't know the minimum hardware requirements is Windows 10, correct?
It would be funny if instead of "10" they used the Roman numeral X for the Windows OS, so Windows OS X.
Re: (Score:2)
For clarification, the system requirements for Windows 9 developer preview are already known
There is no such thing as "Windows 9 developer preview". There's speculation that it will be called "Windows 9". There's speculation that it will have a developer preview. There's speculation about the system requirements. But that's all it is, speculation. No announcements and to my knowledge no leaks about any of those specific points have been made.
Until we see leaks or at least strong rumors by sources that have been correct in the past, nothing is "known". (Remember how many rumors we've had abou
Re:See what happens when you whine enough? (Score:5, Informative)
Suck it up fanbois: Apple sucks farts off dead chickens. Their only game is to keep you on the re-purchase treadmill.
Yeah that must be why they're giving away free OS updates. Nothing says "re-purchase treadmill" like free updates. And every Mac with an 64-bit chips, going as far back as 2007 iMacs, will continue to be supported with new OS updates. If Apple was about what you claim why would a 7 year old system be able to get OS X 10.10?
And they've supported iPhones and iPads with OS for more than a year after stopping sales. Android manufacturers stop providing updates while still selling the product.
Basically, you're full of shit with weak sauce trollbait.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, free upgrades if your old hardware is supported.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, as old as 7 year old iMacs, 6 year old MacBooks, 5.5 year old MacBook Pros, all MacBook Airs, 5 year old Mac Minis and 6 year old Mac Pros. Basically anything far older than the Windows Phone 7 phones that Microsoft is not supporting.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a bit unfair to compare Mac computers with Windows phones. Comparing computers, Microsoft has pretty much an unbeatable record when it comes to supporting old versions.
But iPhones are updated for somewhat longer than Windows Phones (my 3GS was supported from iOS 3 through iOS 6, so 4 years worth).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, free upgrades if your old hardware is supported.
That's true. They dedicated a team to porting MacOS 10.10 to Apple II but they unexpectedly all quit the company. Apple is baffled.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I was running Windows 7 on 10 year old hardware. Can you say the same for OS/X?
I thought not.
Fanboi.
Re: (Score:1)
What a retarded statement. Of course you can't run an x86_64 OS on PowerPC Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
And how pray tell do you presume someone would run a current version of OS X on a PowerPC system? You've basically constructed a scenario that is intentionally impossible.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue is not PowerPC hardware. The issue is the early Intel hardware which is widely reported as unsupported by later versions of OS/X.
Stick your head back in the nice comfortable Apple sand. I'm sure it's warm and moist in there like mama's womb.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no Intel Mac hardware that can't run OS 10.6.8 at least. The vast majority can run 10.10.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not PowerPC hardware.
You mentioned 10-year-old hardware. Unless you're being intentionally dense, the only 10-year-old Macs are PowerPC.
The issue is the early Intel hardware which is widely reported as unsupported by later versions of OS/X.
Yeah, less than a handful of models that represent a tiny minority of Macs in current use.
Re: (Score:1)
Can you run Windows 7 on a 10 year old Itanium system? Once you answer that you should realize the absurdity of your own question.
Re: (Score:1)
No, because there never was a home/workstation edition of windows for Itanium systems.
Windows XP 64-bit supported Itanium.
Re: (Score:2)
That inability to upgrade is precisely what Mac users were complaining about in the last thread on this topic only this past week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No. My 17" high-end-at-the-time macbook pro is a dual core Intel chip -- it's not a PowerPC. Mavericks will not install on it.
Which model specially? Any 17" model from Mid 2007 and later are supported. If you have one of those MacBook Pros and it won't install it means you're doing something wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
The only people who can't upgrade are people with PowerPC or someone with a 32-bit Mac. Basically a minuscule minority. It's no different than Itanium systems losing support from Microsoft in 2005. It's also vastly less worse than WP7 users who were denied the WP8 update when even the oldest phones were only 2 years old or if you happened to own something like a T-Mobile Vibrant like I did that never got Android updates from Samsung after only 1 year so people would buy an S2.
Re: (Score:2)
And every Mac with an 64-bit chips, going as far back as 2007 iMacs, will continue to be supported with new OS updates.
Uh, make that 64-bit EFI and you will be correct - not every 64-bit capable Mac had a 64-bit EFI, and thus your statement is not entirely true.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please. How many people are paying to run Skype on a system that can't or won't be upgraded to Snow Leopard? Supporting Leopard means that Microsoft can't use APIs released in the last 5 years. They probably have to support x86-32 or PPC processors (which is the reason most people on Leopard are still on Leopard). They have to use relatively ancient tools to compile the packages.
All that, or they can just decide to never, ever upgrade the underlying protocol to handle new security requirements or additi
Re: (Score:1)
Apple customers like the lack of support. It gets the ecosystem to move. Rather than sitting for a decade with little progress Apple announces something at WWDC and within about 2 years it is standard across the platform: bing, bang, done.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. That's progress. Aperture filled a niche that was important:
a) It provided a platform in case Adobe discontinued photoshop for Mac
b) It provided a way to work with raw images
c) It provided a version of iPhoto advanced
Well:
a) Is never happening
b) is now handled well by Lightroom
c) Is going to be included in 10.10
So the platform is moving on.
Well I guess it's time (Score:2, Informative)
For me to bite the bullet and get an android phone.
No way am I going to get a windows phone again and risk it going out of support within a year or two.
Re: (Score:3)
For me to bite the bullet and get an android phone. No way am I going to get a windows phone again and risk it going out of support within a year or two.
Yeah, I definitely believe that this AC uses an old WP7 phone. They just exude credibility, and there's nothing fake or phony about their outrage whatsoever. Given that you can pick up an Android off Ebay for peanuts that will run circles around an old WP7 device and support a lot more apps to boot...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WP7 came out almost three years ago. Good luck finding an Android phone supported for anywhere *near* that long! Most Android phones don't receive updates for even a full year. In fact, some of them ship with outdated OS versions and never even receive an update to the version that was current at their release (never mind the version that is current when they leave support). That means that apps targeting the latest APIs are very frequently unavailable.
True, the highest-end (things like the Galaxy S5) and b
Re: (Score:2)
WP7 came out almost three years ago. Good luck finding an Android phone supported for anywhere *near* that long!
Skype claims to run on Android 2.3, released at the end of 2010. Hey, look, that's within a month or two of WP7's release.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember this. When windows phone 9 comes out, Skype will probably quickly stop working on the old wp 8 phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Skype does run on 2.3. It's running on my shit-locked MetroPCS ZTE Score.
Microsoft drops support for Windows, increases Mac (Score:1)
So with this latest announcement, Microsoft is saying they'll support Windows more and Mac less. What a strange world.
Re: (Score:2)
typed that backward. Fingers don't believe me. (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess my fingers didn't believe it could be true and autocorrected what I told them to type.
It's interesting that the Microsoft announcement is MORE support for Mac and LESS support for Windows.
Re:typed that backward. Fingers don't believe me. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting that the Microsoft announcement is MORE support for Mac and LESS support for Windows.
The next generation of interesting software will be done on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC.
-- Bill Gates, BusinessWeek, 26 November 1984
Re: (Score:3)
"Why are we encouraging people to buy new Macs? We should be forcing our own users to upgrade, not theirs."
— Satya Nadella, Internal Memo, 7 August 2014
Re: (Score:2)
...seriously? You're posting a quote from thirty years ago in the computer industry as if it matters today?
** Number 1** (Score:1)
Do they still support Windows 3.11? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure Skype never ran on Windows 3.11
Some platforms are Skype-only (Score:2)
Good news for Leopard users (Score:2)
Because 2 consecutive ads are better than one (Score:1)
Isn't forced obsolescence COOL? (Score:4, Funny)
Is there a reason it can't work on this platform?
Yes.
What's the reason?
We don't want it to.
Is there a TECHNICAL reason that it can't work on this platform?
Yes.
What's the reason.
Technically, we don't want it to.
Is there any reason, BESIDES your not wanting it to, that it can't work on these platform?
Yes.
What's the reason?
Because if we don't want it to, remove the apps, and strip out support, it simply can't!
Re: (Score:3)
Take it from someone who had a WP7 phone for three years, and now has a WP8 phone: Skype never worked right on WP7 in the first place. It really shouldn't have been there to start with, but Microsoft couldn't have one of their most popular apps be a no-show on their mobile OS, so they put out a crippled mess that only served to piss off their users.
On WP8, Skype works just as it should, because WP8 is a completely different OS under the hood and can run the background processes necessary for it to function.
Surprised they haven't dropped N900 support (Score:2)
I am surprised the Skype app on my Nokia N900 continues to work after all this time (and after the phone has long been discontinued by Nokia)
Re: (Score:1)
Skype IPv6 support (Score:2)
Microsoft is obviously done extracting the "value" of Skype for Lync. So why not just sell it off and let someone else support it? Or just close it now. Why force it into a pain
I wonder... (Score:2)
http://it.slashdot.org/story/1... [slashdot.org]