Slashdot Mirror
Skype Reverses Decision To Drop OS X 10.5 Support, Retires Windows Phone 7 App
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.
I'm sure somebody at Microsoft is annoyed at this, but the Skype devs are probably relieved to stop supporting it. It's easy to forget that WP7 was essentially a 1.0 product. It was a restart from Windows Mobile 6.5, and very limited versus concurrent Android and iOS. With WP8 and 8.1 they've been getting up to speed nicely. I still want to see better third party Bluetooth support for devs, though.
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.
That didn't go well enough with Windows XP (it got extended just a little). I guess it only works selectively.
Strike that, reverse it.
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.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
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.
FYI it's me that has that Win 7 phone.
CrazyOldMan
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.
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.
I would keep my unsupported system to avoid using Skype.
In C++, your friends can see your privates.
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 some sense knocked into their skulls.
I don't think any software vendor should be required to support software forever, but there is a difference between withdrawing support and disabling a product without ample prior warning. They blew the rollout, but it looks like they're going to make amends, at least for the Leopard crowd. Hopefully, they'll learn a thing or two about the value of good corporate communication as well.
I'm sure the mac crowd is happy too.
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 additional features.
I can't for the life of me figure why MS would want to bother to keep supporting that old code. What's the return on investment for keeping someone's PPC Mac limping along? Or perhaps that's it: they want to make it easy for people to stay on stone age hardware to try and compel Apple to have to support it. Sounds conspiratorial, but I'm hard pressed to think on a non-conspiracy explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor.
Also, Microsoft is killing support for their own WP7, whose last release came out less than a year and a half ago. So much for your assertion, huh? Maybe they've just decided that supporting a 5 year old OS X version has a better business case than Windows Phone 7, which is very likely true.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I don't think Pidgin is available for game consoles. If the person with whom you're trying to communicate uses an Xbox One console, you have to use Skype because to my knowledge, Microsoft hasn't digitally signed the client for any competing service. And how well does Pidgin work when both sides are behind NAT?
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure Skype never ran on Windows 3.11
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
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.
That inability to upgrade is precisely what Mac users were complaining about in the last thread on this topic only this past week.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
What a retarded statement. Of course you can't run an x86_64 OS on PowerPC Macs.
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.
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.
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)
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.
More importantly, why is Skype *still* unable to support IPv6 addressing? Any device with IPv6 only can't run Skype, and no amount of NAT can fix it. Phone carriers fix it by giving IPv6 to the phone, and IPv4 to Skype that's natted within the phone to the IPv6, but that's impossible for people trying to run Skype on a desktop.
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 painful decline?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I wonder if this is related to the Metro version of Skype being difficult to perform surveillance on.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
XP got extended for years, twice. What would be 'well enough'? Forever?
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.
That's not entirely true, you have to have a 64 bit boot loader to be able to run the latest and greatest OS X. The first generation of Intel Mac Pros had a 32 bit boot loader and are thus officially unable to run anything post Lion(there are workarounds however)
Monstar L
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 is $50 more than $800?
"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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
There is no Intel Mac hardware that can't run OS 10.6.8 at least. The vast majority can run 10.10.
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).
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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...
Please return to first grade.
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.
No, because there never was a home/workstation edition of windows for Itanium systems.
Windows XP 64-bit supported Itanium.
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.
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.