.Neo Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) I on a personal level am glad there are no updates for OS X. So less software for the Mac platform actually makes you feel better? Wow. More for Windows. The Mac and Windows versions are created by two entirely different departments. Cancellation of the Mac version won't speed up progress on the Windows side at all... Edited September 21, 2009 by .Neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerade01 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 So less software for the Mac platform actually makes you feel better? Wow. Yes. I dont use the Mac platform. The Mac and Windows versions are created by two entirely different departments. Cancellation of the Mac version won't speed up progress on the Windows side at all... Yes but if that department disappears, the members of that department can focus on other resources in the company, which the natural step would be to make them go to the Windows' Windows Live Messenger team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibetheone Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 The english version of mac windows live messenger 8.0 leaked back in may and is around 64mb and has video support. I'm hoping they will finish it up and release it by the end of the year. In my opinion though skype, yahoo 10, and gtalk is more useful because of their ability to have full screen video calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Frank B. Subscriber² Posted September 21, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted September 21, 2009 Yes. I dont use the Mac platform.Yes but if that department disappears, the members of that department can focus on other resources in the company, which the natural step would be to make them go to the Windows' Windows Live Messenger team. You do realise that Microsoft has had a Mac Business Unit for years now which worked independently for the most part from the rest of the corporation, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 The guy gets personal pleasure out of the fact that company X stops writing software for platform Y. That in itself says enough I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 I'm starting to be worried about the state of instant messaging on OS X. Microsoft Messenger 8: MIA. Come on MS, give us a beta at least. AIM, Yahoo!: Both clients in what seems to be perpetual beta. I don't use the former, the latter is ok-ish. iChat: Admittedly haven't used it enough to have an opinion. Adium: Development seems to have slowed down for several reasons, lack of programmers being the primary one. The client is more and more lagging behind its Linux/Windows counterpart Pidgin. Which version of the MSN protocol is Messenger:Mac 7 using btw? Microsoft might have to release a beta of Messenger 8 once the forced upgrade for the Windows Live client is implemented. I agree. :( I'm happy with everything on my Mac, except the state of instant messengers. It's so frustrating too, because all features are spread thin over a number of IM clients, instead of one killer app. aMSN and Mercury Messenger have great feature sets IMHO (everything basic with more modern support like custom emoticon sending, direct client-to-client "fast" file transfers, and A/V chat and even conferencing), but they're horribly programmed and don't integrate with the OS like Adium. Adium OTOH is slick like nothing else and feels like a full-fledged OS X app, but it sucks in terms of supporting modern features. :( And yes, it was disheartening to hear that even if libpurple recently gained A/V support (whoa!), Adium may not get it anytime soon because of a lack of devs. *sigh* :( I'm a dev too, but jeez, I have little energy left for that after work to help out. :s I don't really understand why development have stalled when OS X market share is increasing. Maybe devs are leaving their pet projects and few have the energy to learn other's code... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 And yes, MS has some rather major resources for Mac development. :p Office 2008 and Entourage anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Yes. I dont use the Mac platform. That's exactly what I thought. But I don't get your sayings at all. Photo Booth is an exclusivity to OS X and it's by Apple. Windows Live is not an exclusivity to Windows and it's by Microsoft. But the webcam feature is an exclusivity to Windows? Apple has always given fully-featured apps to Windows users (Safari, iTunes, QuickTime) and MS can't get it right with the Office suite, nor with MSN, for OS X users. All we get is crap. Also, a lot of 3rd-party developers have created amazing webcam-capable applications (I'm thinking about Delicious Library here), but Instant messaging? No, we can't. Not on OS X. What I mean is, there's no reason why it should be an exclusivity to Windows, as we HAVE the hardware AND the APIs. I cannot wait until my friends switch to Skype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Apparently Microsoft also lacks the motivation and/or inspiration to come up with a simple yet amazingly cool application like Photo Booth for their own operating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerade01 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 You do realise that Microsoft has had a Mac Business Unit for years now which worked independently for the most part from the rest of the corporation, right? Yes, which would be nice if it was closed down. Increases resources in other Windows development areas. The guy gets personal pleasure out of the fact that company X stops writing software for platform Y. That in itself says enough I think... No, I just dont think Microsoft should write software for Apple and Apple should not write software for Microsoft. Is there a problem with this opinion of mine? That's exactly what I thought.But I don't get your sayings at all. Photo Booth is an exclusivity to OS X and it's by Apple. Windows Live is not an exclusivity to Windows and it's by Microsoft. Thats the direction Microsoft should go. Make it a "exclusivity" to Windows. But the webcam feature is an exclusivity to Windows? Apple has always given fully-featured apps to Windows users (Safari, iTunes, QuickTime) All 3 of those products suck on Windows so.... and MS can't get it right with the Office suite, nor with MSN, for OS X users. All we get is crap. Like above, Apple gives crap software Microsoft just returns the favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Yes, which would be nice if it was closed down. Increases resources in other Windows development areas.No, I just dont think Microsoft should write software for Apple and Apple should not write software for Microsoft. Is there a problem with this opinion of mine? Thats the direction Microsoft should go. Make it a "exclusivity" to Windows. All 3 of those products suck on Windows so.... Like above, Apple gives crap software Microsoft just returns the favor. you need to get out of this thread unless you have something better to say.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Yes, which would be nice if it was closed down. Increases resources in other Windows development areas. So you would put these Cocoa developers on Windows 8? If you thought Vista was a mess, don't be surprised about what's going to happen with Windows 8. Looks, let's get real : MS has so much money, they could add another 10,000 people on Windows if they wanted. But they won't and they have their reasons. I can name a reason : by experience, 10,000 people don't work 10x faster than 1,000 people. All 3 of those products suck on Windows so.... I said they shared the same features at the same places and the OS X versions are great. I don't want to know if they suck or not. What I want to begin with is the features and I want them at the same place on both platforms, as much as possible. Plus, they don't suck that much on Windows ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 What does all this have to do with Messenger for Mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 No, I just dont think Microsoft should write software for Apple and Apple should not write software for Microsoft. Because...? Both Apple and Microsoft make a great deal of money by releasing software for their competitor's platform. It's that simple. You'd be an idiot not to make use of the success the competition has. Goes both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccuk Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 No, I just dont think Microsoft should write software for Apple and Apple should not write software for Microsoft. Is there a problem with this opinion of mine? And why should a company who make their money from writing software, discontinue doing so on the Mac platform, on which they have been writing software for over two decades. Thats the direction Microsoft should go. Make it a "exclusivity" to Windows. What would attempting to lock down and prevent others OSes other than Windows from accessing the MSN protocol achieve exactly? Given many users are now on notebooks running a flavor of Linux, home desktops running yet more flavors of linux such as ubuntu and an increased market share of Macs... People wouldn't simply cut their friends who can't use MSN out of their life, Windows users would jump on a different client and another protocol which works on the other OSes, Skype for example. Microsoft simply will not do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted September 23, 2009 Veteran Share Posted September 23, 2009 Is there a problem with this opinion of mine? No, everyone is entitled to have visceral and uninformed opinions :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 What would attempting to lock down and prevent others OSes other than Windows from accessing the MSN protocol achieve exactly? I think you could make a case that by having a certified MSN client as the only way to access the MSN network Microsoft would gain control over the entire end-user experience. Depending on favorably you view Microsoft that could mean: All advertising revenue generated through MSN funnels back to Microsoft. Third party clients wouldn't exist to block advertisements. If a Microsoft MSN client is the only way to talk with MSN users then there are network effects that may increase the size of the MSN user base at the expense of AIM/Yahoo/etc. (a similar but not exactly concurrent example would be how social network websites feed off one another). By being the exclusive front-end Microsoft could ensure seamless end-to-end experience just as Apple controls access to iPhone applications via the Appstore. There are business reasons to isolate your networks and they don't necessarily coincide with what the users want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellc Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Microsoft's disinterest in updating the Mac client is not as compelling a tale as it may seem and what it seems they want to achieve is working. I know people who have just recently switched to Mac who have actually installed Windows in a virtual machine only to use Windows Live Messenger because they have heard that the Mac client is a) non-existent or b) awful (not nearly as fully featured as the Windows client). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 While Mac users probably don't make up with a huge portion of the entire MSN user base, not supporting Mac OS X (properly) could be potentially damaging. At college for example we only use Macs and most students use them at home as well. I actually know quite a few cases where switchers just stopped using MSN all together and went over to Skype. As a result their friends and relatives on Windows also started using Skype, in some cases dropping MSN completely as well. So it's a bit of a snowball effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I know people who have just recently switched to Mac who have actually installed Windows in a virtual machine only to use Windows Live Messenger because they have heard that the Mac client is a) non-existent or b) awful (not nearly as fully featured as the Windows client). Wow....talk about overkill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acnpt Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Wow....talk about overkill Perhaps. One of my ex-gfs moved to America, and only had a macbook. We tried to use WLM, but couldn't use the extra features :no: , ended up using Skype which is slightly boring. Then decided that neither of us really like long distance relationships :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Then decided that neither of us really like long distance relationships :rofl: I can imagine, my gf just started school in Montreal for her masters.... and it's only 2.5-3 hrs away and it's driving me crazy. I can only imagine how bad it would be with an ocean in between ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccuk Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think you could make a case that by having a certified MSN client as the only way to access the MSN network Microsoft would gain control over the entire end-user experience. Depending on favorably you view Microsoft that could mean: All advertising revenue generated through MSN funnels back to Microsoft. Third party clients wouldn't exist to block advertisements. If a Microsoft MSN client is the only way to talk with MSN users then there are network effects that may increase the size of the MSN user base at the expense of AIM/Yahoo/etc. (a similar but not exactly concurrent example would be how social network websites feed off one another). By being the exclusive front-end Microsoft could ensure seamless end-to-end experience just as Apple controls access to iPhone applications via the Appstore. There are business reasons to isolate your networks and they don't necessarily coincide with what the users want. There are business reasons to not isolate a network solely reliant on an enormous user base. As I pointed out, with an expanded user base of other operating systems, Windows users will jump on another protocol if the MSN protocol was locked down and prevented them from talking with friends who were merely using a different operating system. Microsoft would lose out. Nothing is stopping Microsoft ensuring a "seamless end-to-end experience" whether the protocol is locked down or not, since they don't have to support third party clients. Which is what makes it so laughable. They create the protocol, the server network to handle it and yet cannot make the best messaging client for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwod Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Skype is not an IM. It is like Video / Audio Calls with IM built in. MSN is an IM with Video built in. I have been complaining to Skype that they should take IM seriously. Fixing the IM problem is easy. Making Video and Voice call good is hard. It turns out Skype has no interest in IM at all. All they want is more money from Voice Calls. Anyhow, the perfect solution would be for Someone else to make a decent IM. Since Apple, M$, Ebay, Yahoo and AOL are not interested in making a better IM. Although i doubt it will happen soon since no one has manage to make money from IM yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkNovaGundam Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Skype is not an IM. It is like Video / Audio Calls with IM built in. MSN is an IM with Video built in.I have been complaining to Skype that they should take IM seriously. Fixing the IM problem is easy. Making Video and Voice call good is hard. It turns out Skype has no interest in IM at all. All they want is more money from Voice Calls. Anyhow, the perfect solution would be for Someone else to make a decent IM. Since Apple, M$, Ebay, Yahoo and AOL are not interested in making a better IM. Although i doubt it will happen soon since no one has manage to make money from IM yet. You know, if you go to trillian.im they should have a beta build for Mac OS X publicly available around USA's Thanksgiving (at least, thats what one of the developers stated on the forums at Trillian.im). I use Trillian Astra 4.1 (alpha) on Windows Vista/7 and its pretty nice. So hoping to try it on OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts