
Skype 5 for Mac - shawndumas
http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2011/03/30/skype_5/
======
raganwald
_Skype has noticed that there is a discrepancy in quality between the two
versions, and has decided to make the two versions more similar to each other.
Unfortunately, instead of making the Windows version of Skype better, they’ve
decided to fix the discrepancy by making the Mac version of Skype more like
the Windows version._

This is the number one reason that I prefer Mac-only products to products that
are available on both Windows and Mac.

Invariably, the companies decide that since they have 4x the sales on Windows
as on Mac, the correct course of action is to build a product that is
identical in almost every way with just a very thin GUI "skin" on the outside
that is Mac or Windows specific. I don't know if this is because they think
that the Windows sales "validate" the UX design or if it's an attempt to save
money by having a single code base (or both?), but the results are invariably
awful on the Mac.

Windows users are not interchangeable with Mac users. What "works" for someone
who was given their PC by the IT department does not work for someone who
deliberately chose to buy a product with a tiny market share.

~~~
dguaraglia
I wonder if you realize that _because_ the Macs have a "tiny market share" (as
you describe it) it's just easier (cheaper, too) to produce a re-chromed
version of your software rather than writing a completely new interface just
for those users. Also, it's a plus for the users coming from the PC market
because they don't have to relearn the interface.

~~~
raganwald
_I wonder if you realize that because the Macs have a "tiny market share" (as
you describe it) it's just easier (cheaper, too) to produce a re-chromed
version of your software rather than writing a completely new interface just
for those users._

Considering that I wrote that companies might think it's cheaper, I'm going to
go with yes, I realize that companies might think it's cheaper.

Likewise, it's also cheaper for PC Manufacturers to sell me junk PCs loaded up
with BloatWare, yet I buy Macs. Just as it's perfectly reasonable for company
A to make a product that user B finds repellant, it's also perfectly
reasonable for a company to make a Mac product that sucks, and it's equally
reasonable for a Mac user to avoid it at all costs. Neither party is wrong in
any sense, any more than WalMart is wrong for not selling full carbon mountain
bikes or Ibis Cycles (a specialty manufacturer who lays their frames up by
hand in the USA) is wrong for not rebranding a Chinese steel MTB at a $500
price point.

 _It's a plus for the users coming from the PC market because they don't have
to relearn the interface._

This is not as sound an argument as the one we agree on. Replicating the PC
experience with your Mac product works if you have all these PC users at the
office and one day IT removes their PCs and replaces them with Macs. Or if you
have a company with Macs and PCs and IT support costs show up in a report
somewhere, but Mac user frustration with a poor interface is "off balance-
sheet."

But if someone owns a PC and decides to _switch_ to a Mac, it's because he
explicitly doesn't like the PC experience. Replicate the PC experience on his
Mac, and you may find that he switches products as well as computers.

~~~
dman
The problem with the Mac way is that its all consuming. You completely need to
reorient and reshape your world view to get past the uncanny valley of your
typical Mac fan. No matter how much you polish your QT / Gtk/ Swing UI it will
not pass muster. On the Mac platform native apps seem to dominate - eg
textmate vs jedit/emacs/vim, omnigraffle vs visio, parallels vs virtualbox /
vmware. Which suggests that if you are a cross platform company you might have
to cede the "high end" mac purist to a Mac specific app.

~~~
rtaycher
Having downloaded it I can't seem to find a trace of any pascal but plenty of
nib files.

------
erikpukinskis
This change butts up against what I think is a fundamental, unsolved UI issue.
Power users often don't realize how much if an issue "getting lost" is for
novice users. Dave Worthington's Mom said[1] of the iPad:

    
    
        Well, it’s too touchy. Even though I’m better with it now… if you happen
        just to move your hand or something, you know, then all of a sudden you’re 
        out of what you’re in. That’s bad I think.
    

Notice she doesn't say "you go back a page" or "you've opened something" she
says "you're out of what you're in". Anyone whose done some usability testing
knows that users all the time get "out of what they're in" and are completely
lost. And as the designer you are screaming in your head "You've just gone to
your Account page! Just click the huge red "Back to my movies" link at the top
of the page you ninny!" All. The. Time. Bless us, designers and users both.

I call this an unsolved problem because the options are equally bad:

1) Have one panel where you replace the contents frequently. Like a web
browser. Unfortunately, as the article points out, prevents doing two things
at once. And it forces people to learn often complicated mechanisms for
navigating from state to state.

2) Show multiple panels at the same time. Takes up a lot of space, especially
when there are lots of panels. Can be confusing at first.

3) Show multiple panels, but with the ability to close panels. This introduces
the UI problem of reopening them. You can allow people to shrink/move around
the panels independently, but that gives the user even more ways to lose
something.

There are more advanced ways to deal with the problem. Zooming User
Interfaces[2] were meant to deal with this somewhat... by giving everything a
place and a context, they were supposed to allow you to maintain a good sense
of where things are. But in practice, they turned out to be even more
disorienting than a contextless browser window because navigation is less
constrained and there are so many more places to get lost.

Microsoft, with WP7 does a little innovating here with their panoramic view
control[3]. It puts UI elements in a context and lets you see a little bit of
that context, without forcing people to do free navigation in a virtual space.

As for Skype, I won't argue that the new version is better for anyone, because
I haven't seen the user testing. It's obviously worse for one person, but even
objectively better designs are sometimes worse for power users who have deeply
entrenched workflows in the old product. I do think there's a reasonable
chance that they made the change because of user testing and that novice users
are fundamentally happier in the new version. Again, I don't know because I
haven't seen the testing.

But I will say that the OP is wrong about something. His problem is not the
overall decision to integrate the video and chat into one window. His problem
is that they hid the "open a chat for this person" button. If they had left
the windowing exactly the same, but removed the "open chat" button from the
user list and made you mouse over a video window to see it, he would've been
equally lost.

The problem isn't that they made the wrong choice among flawed windowing
models. The problem is they didn't do the work of making the UI work well
within the constraints the windowing model provides. If they did extensive
testing with a variety of users (including both novices who get lost, and
advanced users who construct massive structures of windows to coordinate with
dozens of people) they would've caught the video/chat bug.

[1] [http://technologizer.com/2011/03/28/my-mom-reviews-the-
ipad-...](http://technologizer.com/2011/03/28/my-mom-reviews-the-ipad-her-
first-computer/) [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooming_user_interface>
[3][http://www.kotancode.com/2010/08/12/preview-of-the-
panorama-...](http://www.kotancode.com/2010/08/12/preview-of-the-panorama-and-
pivot-controls-for-windows-phone-7/)

------
jfrumar
I concur with the Skype 5 degraded UI. I also have a warning to others:

After struggling to see the benefit of Skype 5, I wished to downgrade back to
the previous version. However, I couldn't find a link anywhere on the
Skype.com website for previous versions. As a result I searched on Google and
found a third-party website offering previous versions for download
(<http://mac.oldapps.com/skype.php?old_skype=37>).

I downloaded and installed the older version, and logged into my account.
Later that night I received an email from Skype confirming a purchase for an
"Online Number" that I hadn't made. I immediately logged in to investigate and
I could see the transaction pending. I managed to log into Paypal and remove
Skype from my trusted billers in time.

I believe that the version of Skype I downloaded was stealing login
credentials. Let this be a warning to others that are trying to roll back
their Skype client!

I emailed Skype's security team (after long minutes trying to find a very
hidden contact link on their site). The response was cookie cutter, but
ridiculously contained a sales pitch for the very feature that was just
illegally purchased from my stolen account! This was infuriating - like a slap
in the face from Skype considering my state of mind:

<i>If you'd like to get more out of Skype, why not learn about all our great
features - like Online Numbers? Anyone can dial your Online Number from any
phone or mobile, your Skype rings and you pick up the call – wherever you are
in the world. Find out more at
[http://www.skype.com/go/onlinenumber/</i>](http://www.skype.com/go/onlinenumber/</i>);

~~~
ascott
Gak! Thank you so much, I downloaded and installed their software this
morning. I've deleted it and changed my skype password, I hope that's enough.

Version 2.8 can be found on Skype's website (Techcrunch linked to it in a
recent article): [http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your-
computer/maco...](http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your-
computer/macosx/2-8/)

------
poutine
I refuse to upgrade to Skype 5 after trying it once and accidentally upgrading
a second time when the app tried to auto upgrade itself. The horrid UI
combined with Skype's stated desire to bring ads to the client makes me search
for an alternative which sadly there isn't.

In a business setting I would say that 90% of the time Skype is used as an IM
client because of its working persistant groups and functional file transfers.

Entrepreneurs take note, there's an opportunity to make a competitor to Skype
even though many would say that's crazy since Skype is so entrenched. However
Skype has failed to innovate and is regressing in user experience. If someone
nails the group chat features first and give table stakes for the voice/video
chat we'd have a viable alternate for business use.

~~~
emehrkay
What's missing from skype that isnt provided by AIM or GTalk? Is it the
ability to make phone calls?

~~~
jwatzman
I have been unable to find an alternative that allows me, a Mac user, to do a
video chat with my girlfriend, a Windows user, with no fuss when both of us
are behind separate NATs.

~~~
emehrkay
Not even AIM? I find that hard to believe

~~~
lemming
It's absolutely true. I haven't used AIM much but a while ago I was trying to
find an easy way to talk to my parents. When you want a hassle free
experience, Skype so far is the only option.

~~~
lancewiggs
It's absolutely true. I haven't used AIM much but a while ago I was trying to
find an easy way to talk to my parents. When you want a hassle free
experience, Skype WAS the only option.

It's now no longer hassle free. Like the OP I find the new Skype wretched, now
use it less and would jump at helping my contacts and I switch.

Question: How many Mac users are in the internal Skype testing program? I'm
guessing not many

------
yarone
Saw a tweet recently that summed it up nicely: "@anildash: Seems like Skype
and iTunes are battling it out for the RealPlayer Memorial Award for Most
Annoying Desktop Client App."

If you remember RealPlayer, know Skype for Windows, know iTunes for Windows,
you'll know _exactly_ what I mean.

~~~
Apocryphon
Why are the most essential programs in life the ones that always have the most
obscenely bloated updates?

~~~
miah_
The only reason iTunes seems to be essential is because there is almost no
competition on OSX. Its a fairly horrible music player / media organizer
compared to most Windows based software.

I only use Skype to video chat with my daughters and it could be easily
swapped over to Google chat + Video.

~~~
Apocryphon
I'm not talking about just iTunes and Skype, though. I can think of several
consumer programs that have become more bloated with worse UIs over time- AIM,
Ad-Aware, Windows Media Player, Firefox...

It seems rather inevitable.

~~~
ootachi
What do you dislike about Firefox's UI? I could never go back from Firefox 4
to Firefox 2 or 3.

~~~
rtaycher
The windows ui got a bit worse(no menubar by default right)

------
cjoh
I remember when Apple released FaceTime, they said it'd be an open industry
standard. See:

[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/apple_announce...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/apple_announces_open_standard_facetime_video_chat_for_iphone_4.html)

and

[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177819/Jobs_has_loft...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177819/Jobs_has_lofty_goal_for_iPhone_4_s_FaceTime_video_chat_with_open_standard)

Seems striking that it's been nearly a year and we haven't heard a peep about
making it open. I would presume that if it were, it _could_ be possible to
bridge the two protocols or eliminate the need for skype.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I just did some searching around to confirm this, because I had thought Apple
released the spec back when they announced it, but you're right. Not a peep.

It sort of behooves them to release it... it would build support for FaceTime,
which would make their phones more useful.

But it seems pretty certain they don't want other phones to be able to check
that FaceTime box on their marketing materials just yet. I know being able to
chat with my mom and sister who both have iPhones is one reason I'm
considering buying one.

Seems low to announce it as an open spec if you don't have any intentions of
opening it any time soon though.

~~~
jarek
They'll release it in two years but it's going to be the best spec ever
written for a mobile device. Just wait til Gruber sees the indentation in the
sample code.

------
kingatomic
I can echo the article's sentiments. I upgraded to the new client a few weeks
ago and cannot adequately express the horror I experienced when my clean,
intuitive UI/UX went away and was replaced by some forsaken window vomited up
from a designer's darkest nightmare.

In what possible world does coverflow for contacts make better sense than just
a simple list?

It took actual time for me to figure out how to find my contacts and place a
call. I hold a degree, I am not an idiot. For a program designed specifically
for the purpose of calling people, for that functionality to be that un-
intuitive is simply mind-boggling.

~~~
amyshelton
I think the most horrible part of that is that I continue to experience the
same shock I felt when I first saw it each time I bring it up. It is like I'm
seeing it again for the first time and have to reorient myself. I'm wondering
how many times it will take for me to rewire my brain.

------
powdahound
We have been converting a lot of groups from Skype to HipChat [1] lately and
I'm surprised how many of them cite the UI craziness as a major reason for
wanting to leave the platform. Obviously good, consistent UI is important but
it always seemed like the general public had an amazing ability to deal with
crappy UI. Apparently there is a breaking point.

One thing that's particularly annoying about Skype's UI is that you have no
idea how to help a coworker using a different operating system because the
layout is totally different. Certainly doesn't help adoption.

1\. <https://www.hipchat.com>

------
commanda
As a dev with a remote team, Skype 5 is probably my most-used desktop
application on OS X, besides my IDE.

The other day, after upgrading, I could not for the life of me figure out how
to bring up the number key pad while on a voice call. I needed to "press 1 for
X", but I couldn't do it. This used to be easy in Old Skype.

If a power user like myself can't figure something out, chances are it's too
difficult or hidden for casual users too.

------
simonw
"Something I’ve noticed even casual Skype users do is to send URLs by text
chat during a videochat. Well… How do you do that in Skype 5?"

That burned me in a Skype call yesterday (first time using it since the new
version upgrade). I had to send the link by email instead. I also couldn't
figure out how to hang up a call, so I had to quit the app!

~~~
andrewcurioso
I don't have anyone to do a test video call with right now but I'm pretty sure
you can drag the divider bar at the bottom of the window up and it will reveal
the chat box again.

Can anyone confirm?

P.S. I personally think the new Skype 5 for Mac is a disaster

~~~
simonw
Yup, the linked article describes that as well - wasn't much use for me when I
was on the call though!

------
Legion
What other options are out there that are (a) cross-platform and (b) can be
set to auto-answer video calls?

Skype has been in our plans for our poor man's Telepresence setup, but at the
same time, I've never been super comfortable with relying on Skype,
particularly with their bare-bones Linux support.

------
danboarder
This post is right on, if a few months late. I recall testing the Skype 5 beta
last fall and could not believe the step backward in usability. On the skype
forums many users (including myself) left detailed UX feedback, with many
topics titled things like "5.x user interface is thrill of horror". Sadly most
of the user feedback has been ignored and the final product shows little
improvement on the beta.

------
ernestipark
Skype on the Mac has always just been downright awful. The software is
extremely buggy and confusing. Maybe some of my problems are with settings I
can change, but that is bad UX in my opinion. When I get chats, I hear a
noise, but then can't see who sent me the chat until I go to my buddylist and
scan for a number indicating the number of messages next to someone. There's
also that whole mood message thing which just dumbfounds me. The thing is
though, as long as I can click a button to video chat my parents, these issues
are ignorable for my usage, which is frustrating and relieving at the same
time.

~~~
rflrob
>There's also that whole mood message thing which just dumbfounds me.

My friends and I have come up with a pretty good use for the mood message:
with a custom chatstyle I hacked together, if you set your mood message to a
hex color, the header on your message shows up in that color. It's great for
our multi-person chats to keep messages straight.

------
reaganing
One can get Skype 2.8 from Skype.com if you're worried about getting malware
or problems from other sources as mentioned earlier. Took some digging.

[http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your-
computer/maco...](http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your-
computer/macosx/2-8/)

------
arthurgibson
I try not to publicly complain too much, but when I got this upgrade a month
ago I was shocked. Its so bloated and unevenly proportionate for use. It seems
like they are trying to take up as much real estate on the desktop and compete
for the attention of the user , i.e. move them away from gmail/gchat etc.

------
ojbyrne
So far the best thing I like about it is that the upgrader offers a "Skip This
Version" button. And I'm thankful I know lots of early adopters.

------
kemayo
Skype 5 is what really got my company looking for a different chat solution.
The protocol and features are still generally wonderful, but the client is
just _horrible_ now.

------
simonh
I'm going to have to downgrade. My mother sometimes uses skype on my computer
to chat with relatives, but the auto-hiding toolbar that now owns the buttons
to stop a call or activate/eactivate the camera confuses her. It confused me
for ages, since if you move the mouse off the video area to the top the
toolbar stays permanently, but if you move the mouse away to the bottom it
auto-hides. Took me several sessions to find how to reach the chat window as
well. Gah!

------
stefanobernardi
Skype 2.8 UI was messy, with windows popping up everywhere and sidebars going
crazy. Skype 5 is just perfect, and in all honesty can't find anything wrong
with it a part of the chat while calling thing.

~~~
marksands07
Agreed. I have no idea why the author prefers the 20 window view
<http://cl.ly/5cqD> to Skype 5 <http://cl.ly/5cmT> I've hated Skype's UI until
now. Personally, I think everyone's greatly mistaken for thinking otherwise.

~~~
LukasMathis
I prefer it because I don't have to click five times to see everything I need
to see, every time I haven't looked at Skype for half an hour. And I prefer it
because I don't have to constantly switch between chats just to see what
people are writing. I apologize for being mistaken in this, of course :-)

------
liedra
Additionally to the very spot-on dissection of Skype in the article, what I
find amazingly frustrating about this version is the list of recent calls in
the left-hand menu thing. I call a lot of numbers in Australia, and where it
used to show the full number, now it only shows the first 2-3 digits (i.e. the
+61). When I click on that to hopefully see more about which damn number it
is, the title of the right hand chat/history screen thing is "+61..." ARGH.
NOWHERE does it show the full number. How am I supposed to know if it was my
mum, my sister, or my brother I called? Very frustrating.

I discovered more recently that if I mouse-overed the number in the left hand
menu it would eventually pop up in a tooltip, but _eventually_ is the
operative here. I have to wait a full 5 seconds or so for it to show up, and
that's a long time in annoyed-liedra time.

I hope they fix a lot of this up, because at the moment it's just rubbish.

------
dguaraglia
Great, now they just need to update the Linux client to 2.2 and we are all
settled!

Seriously though, Skype has shown they don't give a crap about their Linux
users.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Surely they'll release 2.1 first; it's still beta, for the last 2 years
AFAICT.

[http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/get-skype/on-your-
computer/l...](http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/get-skype/on-your-
computer/linux/)

>"Skype 2.1 Beta 2 for Linux > >We're excited to announce a new beta version
for Linux, with extra features and better sound and video quality ..."

------
jwatzman
Does anyone have a recommendation for a cross-platform (Mac/Windows at least)
video chat program usable by casual users and which works fine through a NAT?
Skype is quickly becoming annoyingly unusable for the reasons the article
discusses (and more).

~~~
lutorm
Does gtalk not work through NAT?

------
bgentry
I've never seen my coworkers as universally excited as the day one of them
posted the old version of the Skype for Mac dmg in our campfire room.

I'm exaggerating, sure, but everybody was thrilled to get rid of the Skype 5
horror.

------
lurker17
Previous discussions: <http://searchyc.com/submissions/skype+5?sort=by_date>

------
dholowiski
Just to add, for a good percentage of mac skype users, video doesn't work in
5. It doesn't work for me on either of my macs and I had to downgrade.

------
AndrewWarner
<http://www.oldversion.com/Skype.html>

~~~
jonursenbach
OldVersion is for Windows software only.

~~~
cmontgomeryb
<http://mac.oldversion.com/Skype.html>

~~~
krosaen
be careful (see other comment in thread):
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387945>

~~~
cmontgomeryb
Ouch. Thanks for that.

For people who haven't followed the link, 2.8 is available from the source at
[http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your-
computer/maco...](http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your-
computer/macosx/2-8/)

------
mahrain
I have used the Feedback function to complain, and they fixed the spacing a
bit from beta to release.

I can "fix" the windows version by turning off a lot of the "Today screen" and
superfluous information bars everywhere. To make it look more like the old Mac
version.

~~~
andrewcurioso
To me the biggest two things:

1) The dial pad is one of the only things still in a separate window, which is
a pain when entering conference call passwords (which is what I use Skype for
half of the time). Before you could just click in the call window and start
hitting numbers.

2) I can no longer have two different chats open side by side.

Aesthetically I actually don't mind it. It's the huge step backwards in UX
that I hate.

------
beck5
Irrelevant and not surprising considering the author but thats a very clean
and sexy looking blog.

------
exit
do you think skype will come to its senses and revert their ui changes? or is
it motivated by something else, like increasing screen real-estate for
eventual advertising?

------
jaxonrice
for those looking to reinstall Skype 2.8 for Mac:
<http://mac.oldapps.com/skype.php?old_skype=37>

~~~
panacea
See comment above before installing this:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387945>

------
grayrest
We use Skype to communicate at work and pretty much curse Skype 5 every time
we use it. My personal favorite interface feature is that double clicking
someone when you're video chatting between multiple people MINIMIZES that
person. I've watched no fewer than 10 people double click the main presenter
in chat only to make a face and start fiddling with things when it does the
opposite of what they want.

------
yamilg
Ha: I happen to love the new Skype version

~~~
cschep
We would all honestly love to know why?

------
technomancy
I've been grumbling for a while that the Linux client was still on version
2.1, but I guess that's something I should be thankful for. (Though these days
with the pidgin and gnome-do plugins I rarely interact with Skype directly; I
don't know how people can work in chat rooms without nick coloring.)

~~~
dguaraglia
What really pisses me off about the Linux version of Skype is that it doesn't
support multiple telephone numbers per contact. You are stuck with either
using the first number in the number list (not always an option), creating
multiple contacts, or manually entering the secondary phone if the person you
are contacting is not available on their first phone.

------
adamskhan
Agree with you so well, and thanks for the link back to 2.8, which I've
gratefully reinstalled.

------
jeff18
There is still no way to turn off birthday notifications on Mac OS X. That is,
any time it is any one of your contact's birthdays, Skype sends you a
mandatory message about it which requires user action to dismiss.

------
sashthebash
A nice interface suggestion just came up on Techcrunch:
<http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/30/skype-5>

------
serpent
A small remedy is the "Contacts" window (command-3) -- but it doesn't show
waiting messages.

Thinking about a downgrade myself...

