Skype Doubles Group Call Limit to 50, Overtakes FaceTime's Max of 32

[I7guy]

Skype...FTW? 32 is a lot, 50 seems unmanageable.

 

[patent10021]

Finally I can talk to my 50 wives all at the same time.

 

[Westside guy]

I'm in an IT group for a university department. We tried to stay with Skype for Business because we get tired of always having to chase the latest and greatest new thing (which is currently Zoom), but - in the end, the Skype ecosystem is a dumpster fire. You've got two products, Skype and Skype for Business, which have different code bases (since "Business" used to be Lync) and are not feature-equivalent nor even completely compatible. This matters because while you can (somewhat) control which product your local people use, you have no ability to manage remote participants.

So... we've moved to Zoom, like everyone else.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Point:

Counterpoint:

One of these things is not like the other.

Enterprise deployment and retail deployment are different. Microsoft Teams, which has replaced Skype, is 250 max in a meeting with the last 4 speakers being displayed on-screen at a given time.

50 for retail seems awfully random. Like just a number to have a number. So does 32, to be fair...

 

[69Mustang]

Enterprise deployment and retail deployment are different. Microsoft Teams, which has replaced Skype, is 250 max in a meeting with the last 4 speakers being displayed on-screen at a given time.

50 for retail seems awfully random. Like just a number to have a number. So does 32, to be fair...

That's a difference without distinction in relation to the discussion of not understanding the use case for 50 person Skype. squizzler calling it an utterly usless feature made no sense, and Farsider provided a great example of how it could be not utterly useless. Couldn't a small/medium business use 50 person Skpe in the same fashion as an Enterprise would use Teams? How they differ in size and scope isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

[votdfak]

I'm in an IT group for a university department. We tried to stay with Skype for Business because we get tired of always having to chase the latest and greatest new thing (which is currently Zoom), but - in the end, the Skype ecosystem is a dumpster fire. You've got two products, Skype and Skype for Business, which have different code bases (since "Business" used to be Lync) and are not feature-equivalent nor even completely compatible. This matters because while you can (somewhat) control which product your local people use, you have no ability to manage remote participants.

So... we've moved to Zoom, like everyone else.

Microsoft Teams used to be SfB (Skype for Business) that used to be Lync that used to be OCS (Office Communication Server) and you have Skype that's free and available for general public. It's not confusing at all.

 

[harriska2]

I run a really small nonprofit and have quarterly board meetings. Zoom is free for 40 minutes which is enough time for us, even for chit chat at the end. I like their invite tools and the ability to call in when one member is located in a place that doesn’t have good enough cell signal or wifi available (Oregon coast). Has worked for us for many years now. Haven’t tried the slide/share feature.

 

[ignatius345]

50 people Just Seems Way too convoluted and I’m not sure how you could even have a practical meeting/discussion with that many people involved. I’m curious how many companies/organizations, etc. would even be want to take advantage of 50 participants.

At jobs I've had, any conference call that big is usually more of a "few to many" presentation or announcement, pretty analogous to having a few people on a stage talking about something and then selectively taking questions. I can't imagine video being particularly useful unless, I guess, there's some visual thing being referred to by the presenters.
[doublepost=1554736691][/doublepost]

I run a really small nonprofit and have quarterly board meetings. Zoom is free for 40 minutes which is enough time for us, even for chit chat at the end. I like their invite tools and the ability to call in when one member is located in a place that doesn’t have good enough cell signal or wifi available (Oregon coast). Has worked for us for many years now. Haven’t tried the slide/share feature.

That 40 minute limit sounds like a godsend, actually. I wish every meeting I ever had was limited to 40 minutes

 

[Morgenland]

I work in a massive Enterprise and we use Zoom too. We are all geographically distributed so face to face isn't possible.

We have embedded a culture of ‘video on by default’ and the change in professional relationship building has been staggering. Sure it was a little uncomfortable for most at first but now its the norm. It’s just so much more personable than an audio bridge or chat window.

We have held 50-100 person Zoom video calls. It’s easy to manage, performance is quite remarkable considering what is actually happening and it just works really well. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

Based on our experience, it’s easy to see why Skype have done this. They need to compete.

Thanks, strange insight. Security Service? NCA?

 

[Farsider]

Thanks, strange insight. Security Service? NCA?

Financial Services

 

[Jyby]

Science Rules!