[gregdoesit]

Original Skype for Web developer here. I was part of the launch team who built the first version for this product in 2014[1]. Back then we supported Chrome, IE 9+, Safari and Firefox. Already we had internal debates to support Opera, but the decision was to focus on the largest browsers.

For each browser, we had to add support in our standalone plugin, that was (and still is) required to install for audio/video calls. There was a small maintenance cost per browser, which was a bigger one whenever changes to the plug-in were made.

I left Skype/Microsoft a long time ago and Microsoft announced in March they will drop support for Firefox[2]. I can only speculate, but it’s likely due to not wanting to pay the maintenance cost of this product on an ongoing basis.

Not directly related story from building Skype for Web: a big internal battle those days was us vs the Edge team. We wanted Edge to ship the Skype plugin as default, making calls seamless for Edge users, not needing to install a plugin (we saw large drops in adoption due to this plugin). Chrome already did exactly this with Hangouts back in the day and we saw it as them eating our lunch.

This was at the time of Steve Balmer’s Microsoft, where collaboration between different orgs was difficult and facing strong political headwind. We got nowhere with the Edge team, who wanted no dependencies and prioritised performance above anything like this - and also wanted to hit their own KPIs, which had nothing to do with Skype users preferring to use Edge.

We reasoned, pleaded, argued, steamed, shouted names and even used the "C" argument ("but... but... but... even Chrome does it!"). No avail. So a separate plugin install it was, giving people zero incentive to use a Microsoft browser for a Microsoft product. The Edge team were pleased they did not have to cater for another dependency and their roadmap remained unchanged. We were frustrated and had little doubt which brodwser will keep gaining market share - being certain it will not be IE/Edge.

Other not directly related story: a few years ago I wrote in detail my take on why Skype failed, here on HN. Read it on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10927600

[1] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp... [2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/03/microsofts-new-skype...

[mellosouls]

I appreciate the inside perspective on this, and the frustration is understandable from the pov of the Skype for Web team.

The Edge team made the right decision though from this user's perspective.

I want a browser, not a Microsoft utility dashboard.

Another vote against bloat here I'm afraid.

[ryandrake]

I’m not a Skype user or an Edge user so I don’t have a dog in this particular race but in general I can’t stand it when these “software barnacles” latch on and get bundled with the software I actually want.

We just had a similar article related to this kind of bloatware yesterday [1]. When you’re in a big company and your job performance is measured by something like “number of installs,” well by golly, you’re going to advocate for anything that juices that install rate. When you’re measured by “number of daily active users” you’re going to use notifications and spam to beg users to use it. And in the extreme case of your project being ignored by users and you need to justify it’s very existence, you’re going to pull out all the tricks and dark patterns you know, in order to force people to have/use it.

It’s a shame that success in software tends to me measured with these vanity metrics. It’s a big reason we have so much unwanted software that gets bundled with wanted software, and why so many apps beg you to use them.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20803817

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20804737

[gwbas1c]

Edge did the right thing. I can't stand it when a product comes bundled with a bunch of bloat that I'll never use.

[vezycash]

How about a 1-click install on first use?

[cameronbrown]

> no dependencies and prioritised performance above anything

Edge was in a weird position where it somehow looked fast but felt sluggish. A real shame it didn't work out though.

[vezycash]

It was sluggish and hung for no reason. It was super bare boned and still slow. So, if I installed the same number of extensions as I have on Firefox, it would grind to a halt. I guess that's what we get when they prioritize looks or design over functionality.

The most annoying part for me was updates. They supposedly created Edge as a browser decoupled from the OS unlike Internet Explorer. They claimed that with Edge, they would be able to iterate quickly with regular updates - like Chrome.

Yet, for 4 years, updating edge required a major OS update AFAIK.

[zsrxx]

It felt sluggish because they were forced to use the Metro UI toolkit. Had they used Win32, it would have blown Firefox and maybe Chrome out of the water.

[rjzzleep]

>> For each browser, we had to add support in our standalone plugin, that was (and still is) required to install for audio/video calls

Wait Chrome doesn't need it right? I think the issue here is a codec no?

There's even people that have hangouts working in pidgin because it just uses webrtc.

I was trying to debug potential webrtc issues with skype web for pidgin.

It's one thing to say we wanted to do this and that but I don't see you guys reaching out to browsers upstream at all to work on a solution that doesn't need a plug-in.

Personally nowadays I just recommend everyone not to use Skype and many of my friends do the same despite being what we all used to use first.

[vezycash]

I enjoyed using Skype for a short period - when Microsoft integrated it with the SMS app on Windows Phone. Notifications delivered timely, chatting was a breeze - none of the processor, & ram heavy lag Skype's known for.

After they broke that, I went back to the normal skype.

I stopped using Skype because it framed me and my pals as assholes. I'd send messages and it wouldn't deliver but make me think it did. I'd then think the other person was ignoring me.

It'd say I'm online with both my PC and phone disconnected from the internet. So people would chat me up and I'd not reply for hours or days. And I'd have to start explaining and giving live demos to prove that Skype's playing tricks.

I'd send a message but the recipient will see "your client version cannot handle this message" or some other cryptic message.

I feel like Facebook paid Skype to intentionally frustrate from their service. They keep working hard to push users away.

[aerovistae]

Same experience here. My friends and I for the past 10+ years have tried to avoid Skype wherever possible and generally barely used it unless other forms of videoconferencing failed us too. It's almost a running joke with us that any attempt to use Skype will only result in frustration and disappointment, and all calls are prefaced with a standard "hold on, Skype is fucking up, give me a few minutes."

Along with Gchat it's just one of the ultimate digital product failures of our time. What should have been miles ahead of any competitor and cornered the market, instead became something users vehemently hated.

[edm0nd]

Is it true that Microsoft revamped Skype in order to comply with law enforcement wiretaps and log everything for subpeonas?

[gregdoesit]

Skype was non-reliable by 2013 due to P2P. Messages were not being delivered reliably. All our competitors were using a centraised-server model, the biggest threat being WhatsApp at the time.

So we kicked off the same effort before Microsoft bought Skype. The effort them took a LOT longer due to the merger. It finished a few years after the acquisition. Without MS acquiring, we would have gotten it done much faster.

Somehow the internet got this idea “Skype is going centralised to allow wiretapping, because of Microsoft”. We did it as we were fighting to be functional/somewhat reliable, with (chat) messaging becoming so big. I have a longer version in a comment[1] from a few years ago.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10927600

[HenryBemis]

So you mean the change in their model (some years back) from P2P to via-their-servers?

Having ZERO trust to Microsoft's ethics, and with the dark history of leaving things unpatched for 3-letter agencies to go berserk, it makes that theory semi-valid. I am sure that Microsoft will neither xobrifm, nor deny this allegation ;)

Edit: every time I see something massive breaking in the news about system vulnerabilities that existed 2-5-10 years, it makes me think that NSA/CIA/USA lost control of the tool/vulnerability, and they run to patch before other state agents get the chance to equally abuse that.

[dao-]

> For each browser, we had to add support in our standalone plugin, that was (and still is) required to install for audio/video calls.

Is this true? What kind of plugin are we talking about? I believe both Chrome and Firefox deprecated NPAPI, with only Firefox still supporting the Flash NPAPI plugin for a year or so? Is this a pepper plugin?

[pluma]

From talking to MS devs at conferences it feels like Skype is internally considered a dead end these days. Skype for Business (i.e. Lync) is already being replaced with Microsoft Teams.

I'm not sure if MS is actually planning to replace Skype with anything or to just keep it around until nobody uses it anymore but all the recent updates felt rather half-hearted. It's still used for video calls in the consumer space apparently but I would guess that's an aging demographic as most kids and young adults seem to be using various mobile apps instead.

[tinus_hn]

In other news, you don’t need plugins to provide voice or video calls in a browser. You do have to make a real web version though.