Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryaniscool | Hacker News Reader

I'm not a Microsoft fan but I don't get two of your examples.

Nokia was on the path to obsolescence before Microsoft purchased the failing company. Nokia lost more than $3 billion dollars in 2012. You don't spend billions of dollars to purchase a failing company and then intentionally fail some more. Skype works the same as it always has for me and I pay them nothing. Are you upset that Skype hasn't moved forward at all? That seems like a valid criticism but hardly "evil".

The stuff they did in the 90's was true evil. They actively sabotaged competitive technology and companies. Making agreements in bad faith was part of their corporate culture. They considered open source a cancer they were trying to snuff out.

View on HN

Stephen Elop, from Microsoft, became CEO of Nokia in 2010. Nokia was struggling to adapt before that, in 2008/2009, but Elop formed partnerships with Microsoft, put all bets on Windows Phone, and cancelled work on Android devices and the previous experimental Maemo platform. He decimated a huge company surprisingly quickly.

But is this really Microsoft's fault? Not directly, I guess ... but is it really plausible that Microsoft didn't have any underhanded influence on Nokia's board to put an obvious Microsoft stooge/idiot in charge of destroying the company?

For Skype, the real complaints (maybe not here) are the structure and ways Skype works.

Originally, Skype was a P2P communications platform, even for calls. After Microsoft acquired it, it was pushed into a centralized model. This goes against some fundamental concepts of how the internet is supposed to work, and the main benefits are mostly for Microsoft and not necessarily for users. Data acquisition of random call monitoring (for "quality"), government snooping (PRISM), and to integrate Skype into things like Xbox.

We should be moving more in the direction of federated protocols, but instead we are moving towards more and more centralization in tech and as well as in our society. This also has security implications with data consolidation, data sharing, etc.

> Skype works the same as it always has for me and I pay them nothing.

I used to pay them for a monthly subscription so that I could use skype phone hardware to maintain a -sort of- VOIP variant and be easy to reach, even while on the road. About two years ago, all of my phone hardware started to fail. Those phones are now collecting dust and I replaced them with proper VOIP hardware. Yes I should have done that before, but skype DID work great for this in the past.

If somebody calls me now on that line and my computer is off or suspended, I will never know as the call does not get registered. Besides that I might have turned down the volume on my computer for whatever reason and still miss the call.

Then there's the electron muckup which is really bad, removed a bunch of features and configuration options, is super laggy and uses a lot of resources.

Also the move from P2P to using microsoft servers is not exactly a security improvement.

Skype is a mess and I'm glad I moved away from it for any serious usage.

Although, this guy did become Nokia's CEO in 2010: http://enwp.org/Stephen_Elop Then, he proceeded to tank the company and make it cheaper to acquire.

Well, it isn't only Nokia, it's in the context of Microsoft's whole mobile strategy where they were more than happy to fuck over their own users. For example, the Windows Phone running version 7 could not be upgraded to 8. Or that it took them over two years to port Skype (which they owned) to Windows Phone. Meanwhile, it was available on iOS.

This was all around 2010 and after. Not in the 90s. So Nokia is just shorthand for how clueless they were in this space.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com