I am out of the loop as to why Zoom is suddenly "blowing up". Even my workplace is using it now. Previously, we were using either Skype, Webex, or Jitsi. What does Zoom offer that the other three doesn't?
2. Related to the above, I have rarely, if ever, had a problem with Zoom quality.
3. The onboarding for new users (basically just share a link) is dead simple. Zoom realized that the install process was a significant barrier and did more than anyone else to lower that barrier (of course, with lots of security/privacy issues to boot, but your average Joe isn't aware of those).
4. A smaller factor but perhaps a bigger one for people using Zoom for personal reasons (e.g. teenagers and college kids) are the 'fun' features like virtual backgrounds.
Also gallery view + image/whatever recognition = ad tech heaven.
Yes. By installing a local web server on every users PC, which was prone to remote execution exploits.
They really don’t give a shit about security and actively try to subvert every security measure put in place by browser and OS-vendors.
Why anyone would trust them with anything is beyond me.
Massive factor here. You can use it and it mostly works extremely well. Much better than almost anything else, including the previously beloved Google Hangouts. In fairness to Microsoft, Teams is probably up there for quality nowadays too, but does lack a good gallery feature.
Compare this with WebEx. I can only assume Cisco are gradually winding it down to EOL because I haven't been on a WebEx call that was anything other than an absolute shitshow since around 2014. Even before this it was really just the best of the worst.
> 3. The onboarding for new users (basically just share a link) is dead simple. Zoom realized that the install process was a significant barrier and did more than anyone else to lower that barrier (of course, with lots of security/privacy issues to boot, but your average Joe isn't aware of those).
Again, agree. Zoom "just works"(TM) for most people, most of the time. And for most people, most of the time, that outweighs any security concerns.
It frustrates me that a certain segment of IT security professionals do not understand this. If you're one of these people, you need to realise that security is necessary but not sufficient. Security is a minimum requirement, but it is not even close to the bare minimum.
Your product actually needs to be good within the context of what users are trying to achieve with it. It needs to do exactly what it's supposed to without drama and fuss. The product is the means, not the end and so, by implication, is the security product.
Human nature is generally to choose things that reduce friction over those that add it, so find a way to build a product that is both secure and gets out of the way.
I really don't get why Jitsi hasn't taken over the world yet, given that it's even simpler: just share the link, and the receiver doesn't even have to install anything.
(Also, doesn't the gallery view exist in every major videoconf platform? I've seen it in at least Jitsi, Whereby and Gotomeeting... And Zoom's browser mode (which is less accessible than Jitsi's) doesn't even support it.)
The things that needs to work for a video call is: The network must be reasonably reliable and not overloaded. The camera must be configured and not privacy blocked. The correct recording device must be used, it must be recording (opportunity for both user error and OS issues here). If hardware codes are used (a requirement on lower end devices) it must support low enough bitrates, must have the right options.
Typically all these things are slightly different between different devices and operating systems. It's typically easy to build a proof of concept with great quality and reliable connections between two given devices over a given network. It's super hard to make a product that is reliable enough that millions of users only rarely run into issues.
To be competitive in videoconferencing these days, you need:
* Low latency, so people don't talk over each other
* Video and audio compression that doesn't get confused by dropped packets.
* Setup so easy first-time users won't be late to their video job interview.
* Group calls for 10+ people
* HD quality
* Adaptive bitrates, for users on different speed links
* Skip-free audio even if a user's link goes from uncongested to heavily congested.
* Reliable support for every webcam and USB headset on the market, and hot-plugging them during the call, and changing OS permissions during the call.
* Reliable support for unreliable bluetooth headsets and unreliable bluetooth dongles.
* Echo cancellation that works with every device and room configuration going. Including devices that have their own built-in echo cancellation.
* Audio that's clear even in the presence of background noise, and different people at different distances from the microphone.
* Users behind every type of misconfigured firewall you can imagine.
* Roaming between different Wifi access points, and between wifi and cell data while on a call (including links with no connectivity sometimes)
* Never (or almost never) forcing a user to update their software at the moment they're trying to join an important meeting or job interview.
* Update support (or long-term compatibility) for users who don't have administrator rights.
* Graceful recovery if the user sleeps then resumes their device.
* Screen sharing that retains good readability, even if a user has unwisely made the text on their presentation a bit small.
* Screen sharing of Youtube videos without making them blurry or choppy, even if they're embedded in presentations.
* CPU and battery efficiency.
* Free of charge
* All the above on iOS, Android, Windows, Mac, Linux and WebRTC.
It seems like, in the current use case, this one isn't as important? Institutions would pay for something that does everything else really well. Source: All the paid accounts my institution shelled out for on Zoom in our transition to remote work. So I guess n=1.
But Skype, Discord, Google Hangouts, Facetime and Whatsapp all have a generous free tier. I haven't tried Zoom or Webex but it looks like they do too.
This is not to say it is easy at all, of course; there a thousand things to do to implement it, but I think other fields face similar constraints, like videogame engines and distributed simulations.
"All Skype-to-Skype voice, video, file transfers and instant messages are encrypted"
https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA31/does-skype-use-encrypt...
https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA34824/what-are-skype-priv...
The others don't work, are Microsoft UI dumpster fires (Skype), or consume vast amounts of CPU (anything WebRTC for some reason).
There seems to be a law that states that all messenger apps must be bloated slow junk and must accumulate cruft over time until they turn to mush.
They use WebRTC data channels, but nothing else. I'd speculate that this is the reason why they try to push people into using the desktop client.
Why did no one else crack this issue? Google has some smart people and so does MSFT. Perhaps just lack of caring?
I don't get it.
They're probably not huge revenue drivers (if at all). Why would they be a priority for either of those companies? And I can't imagine they're particularly inspiring projects to work on, which can be a self-reinforcing cycle if the best people don't want to work on them.
It is easy
It just works
It works cross platform (why the hell is this such an issue!)
Quality is good
You can record meetings
The Uni tried a different software before Zoom (forgot the name but it started with a K, from a company I never heard of before). And it was VERY GOOD but the video was choppy.
Zoom isn't 10x better, it's just enough though.
Maybe we did something wrong, though, and missed features in Hangouts and Skype. If that is the case I'd be very happy if someone could point it out to me. (Our whole university is using Google Hangouts right now, because our administration doesn't want to pay for additional Zoom subscriptions.)
Cisco didn’t fully understand the opportunity he saw to reduce the amount of friction needed to use most video conferencing (VC) software tools, including the tools by Cisco, which is understandable since Cisco was afraid they might cannibalize sales in their VC hardware business.
Honestly in my experience, there's no real benefit when compared with Skype, Hangouts, or Discord except for the frequently mentioned large 50 person+ video streaming.
known zoom for a while... the "it just works" and "it has better quality" comments are very surprising to me and got me skeptical. are skype, slack, gotomeeting, hangouts, meet, webex, &c. all really crashing on people now? in a huge conspiracy?
things i thought could be the real reason: novelty (for some/most people), popularity (someone online famous/influencer mentioned it), shadow marketing, luck.
but wikipedia told me is actually going on: schools have decided that zoom will be the de-facto remote schooling platform. a bunch of young people appropriated the platform it seems.
hope that helps. the superiority talk is just that. but now they are in a good position to become better than any other video conferencing software.
Sometimes it's call quality, sometimes it's stability, sometimes it's usability, sometimes it's features.
It's astonishing how so much low-quality software gets distributed, but: yes. Hangouts and Slack are a pain to get everyone logged in / invited to. Everything else on your list just breaks a lot.
> but wikipedia told me is actually going on: schools have decided that zoom will be the de-facto remote schooling platform. a bunch of young people appropriated the platform it seems.
That's a non-explanation. Zoom is popular with young people, sure. Why? The same reason it's popular with everyone else, because it works better.
With the lock down, more online classes, more people seeing the Zoom logo?
We switched to Zoom from Skype and Webex simply because it was cheaper.