I didn’t. Thanks for the shoutout, I’ll have a look.

You’re way outside my scope of knowledge - I know a bit about the decisions they took 10 years, and not very much on what is happening today. I would imagine some of these limits are configurable and dynamic. I really don’t know.

Skype made the call negotiation go through a central server (as does all systems nowadays). Skype was originally built on Kazaa technology to punch through firewalls without a central coordinator and that’s what Microsoft removed. They didn’t remove it to track the calling but to enable larger group calls on weaker devices which required video mixing on a central system rather than peer to peer call (where weaker peers couldn’t decode that many video streams). Calls up to 4 are still routed peer to peer if the backend can find routes through all firewalls.

Very very little of Skype was in the new Teams if anything. Teams was a rewrap of Communicator calling tech and was a response to Slack. The real time chatting had nothing to do with Skype either.

Skype lingered in Microsoft for a couple of reasons; Microsoft was crap at acquiring businesses back then, thinking that a hands off approach was best. It meant Skype never really became a proper Microsoft team - they still felt and acted like Skype employees and they didn’t manage to affect Redmond very well. Being acquired is super hard especially when almost all of the bigger business was in a different time zone and a different culture.

I was at a leadership development workshop with a tonne of Skype leaders about 10 years ago. They were still feeling incredibly frustrated and not understanding what was expected of them. It was a botched acquisition and the fault was on both sides.

Of all the meeting solutions, I’ve come to the conclusion that Google Meet is the least bad.

In mean aside from the fact that almost all of that story is completely wrong, it’s a good story.

Source: Used to work at Microsoft and worked a lot with people from the Skype team.

The only thing we can hope for is that Musk is dumb enough to volunteer to be “apprehended” by ED209. He strikes me as having that much techno-optimism (also see: Steel ball against Cybertruck window).

Yeah, don’t for a second think this wasn’t part of the deal he made with Musk.

I don’t quite understand how this is an issue.

I mean personally I’m happy with anonymised ads from DDG in return for anonymised Bing searches (+their own guffins) but I think it’s fair enough, if you really want to see no ads, that some turn to Kagi.

You’ll be able to fit a finger under it I bet.

Depends on where you live. Many places you can’t trust the government and they know almost nothing about you.

In Scandinavia every citizen has a registration number and the government has deployed state-enforced online digital identity system.

It’s not a privacy nightmare if you can trust the government. And in Scandinavia you generally can.

The board doesn’t care about the number of people employed. They care about the current profitability and future profitability.

Of course that’s their job; to look after shareholder interests. And the money would move to a better investment if they didn’t.

It’s the whole system you need to change, if you seek change, not moan about an individual CEO.

Got it. Saying “this is how free markets always end” if they meant “free markets tends to move towards monopolies” confused me.

Yes but the statement was “this is how free markets always end”. And I’m just wondering if the commenter has actually been around to see “free markets ending.”

Sorry have you been around to observe a lot of free markets ending?

Voyager AKA WefWef AKA The Best™️

I said “the ones I’ve come across”. Thats as “leap free” as I can make that statement.

I agree re AWS; they’ve already got super disgruntled staff and they definitely cannot afford to lose good staff from this.

But the leap you’re making is between a single statement from one CEO and the nebulous “they”.

I’ve been pretty close to billionaire CEOs in my career and certainly the ones I’ve come across have been well equipped to handle the job, well adjusted and well meaning.

That strikes me as a bit of a leap.

Is that an opinion or backed by facts? I’ve never seen someone fired from a C-level role only to be hired into an investor’s other investment.