Live data from Hacker News

Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

blog.google

171–180 of 255 posts

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#171
post #75

I work for Google, but not on anything related to Meet. I'm most excited about this because the video/audio quality is much higher. When I use Zoom with friends, everyone is usually 320x240, or maybe 640x480 if there's only one person. Doom was 320x240 in 1993. In Google Meet, I usually see people at 1280x920. A 4k monitor will fit 6 people at that resolution. I value this higher resolution because it makes me feel m…

[deleted]

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#173
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has extremely valid market reasons. Google Hangouts = the original chat+video product which was semi-popular, but never got huge traction and mindshare the way WhatsApp, Slack, the original Skype, or the newer FaceTime did. And now Zoom and Teams. So Google realized it had to compete better against all of those, all of those being very separate communications channels with different priorities. Hangouts could neve…

[edit: deleted. Appear to have been rate limited by HN so I can't reply? so withdrawing from the conversation]

So I'm going to disagree with you for three reasons here.

1) A product has to have simple UX to achieve primary use cases easily. Even if all features can be engineered, building a simple intuitive UI that works for Slack chat, 1-1 calls, and big meetings is probably impossible.

2) Engineering-wise they're also very different. The behind-the-scenes architecture for 1-1 or small groups, versus huge meetings, is also totally different. Similarly whether chat persists in long-lived "rooms", or only for the length of a video call, or only between two people.

3) Finally, people making corporate buying decisions want a product that fits easily into their conceptual understandings. Slack created a category. Google had to respond with a product branded specifically for that category, not a mega-product that also does the things in that category, because people don't "get" that for whatever psychological reason.

You're right that Hangouts did all this previously. But that's also why Hangouts failed. It was a "jack of all trades, master of none."

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#174
post #122
post #6

I left Google and the Meet team a while ago. Would have been great to experience this 30x growth though! Being oncall these days would have been interesting. I have used Meet a lot both personally and professionally this spring and I think it's great. Been waiting for this announcement!

Miss you on the team :)

Haha, thanks! That is good to hear.

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#175

Can someone tell me the difference between Google Meet, Google Hangouts, Google Duo and Google Chat? Multiple of these support video and chat. I’ve used Hangouts and Chat and Duo before. Why the new brand “Meet”? And why have competing - even more importantly - confusing products at Google who seem to offer the same features? I would like to, but cannot be bullish on Google as a video communications platform for this…

It has extremely valid market reasons. Google Hangouts = the original chat+video product which was semi-popular, but never got huge traction and mindshare the way WhatsApp, Slack, the original Skype, or the newer FaceTime did. And now Zoom and Teams. So Google realized it had to compete better against all of those, all of those being very separate communications channels with different priorities. Hangouts could neve…

And they brand everything as a "tool for everyone" so no one can tell if they are the intended demographic until after they install the app or do an hour of research.

I would love to see how a branding team continues to justify this "Google $generic_word" branding model to the brass at Alphabet. People were unlikely to make "Hangout" a verb like "Zoom", and they definitely won't do that with "Meet". The only thing this seems to accomplish is reinforce Google's reputation for rushing things to market and pulling support too early.

I really think these rushed entries by tech giants only benefit the Zooms and Slacks in the specific space. When potential customers are bogged down by choosing between Teams, Discord, Telegram, Messenger, or whatever other chat app is out there, they are more inclined to choose the familiar incumbent.

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hangouts used to be a single product that combined video, voice, direct, and group chats. It was quite good, especially with Google Voice layered in. Google split that in to Meet (video/voice) and Chat (direct/group) in a half-hearted effort to compete with Slack and Microsoft Teams. You could also say they split it further via Google Voice, which became a standalone paid offering. The issue is they still haven't sol…

Hangouts still exists and is popular, it's not a past product.

Not yet anyway...

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#177

Can someone tell me the difference between Google Meet, Google Hangouts, Google Duo and Google Chat? Multiple of these support video and chat. I’ve used Hangouts and Chat and Duo before. Why the new brand “Meet”? And why have competing - even more importantly - confusing products at Google who seem to offer the same features? I would like to, but cannot be bullish on Google as a video communications platform for this…

It has extremely valid market reasons. Google Hangouts = the original chat+video product which was semi-popular, but never got huge traction and mindshare the way WhatsApp, Slack, the original Skype, or the newer FaceTime did. And now Zoom and Teams. So Google realized it had to compete better against all of those, all of those being very separate communications channels with different priorities. Hangouts could neve…

The real problem is that there are too many chat servers period.

From a back-end perspective there is a real difference between a platform where a teacher can lecture to 500 students, as opposed to one where people talk to each other over an ad-hoc WiFi network.

However, the story of messaging applications is that something new comes along, like CuSeeMe, people are blown away by it, that thing inevitably deteriorates over time technically (why?) and often deteriorates socially (I switched from Skype to a real SIP phone since ever since I went to Montreal I get these ladies calling me up who want to speak French and I think show me something I don't know what to see.)

It's not easy to see progress. Facebook messenger doesn't seem that different from AIM except one of them is tied to Facebook and the other is tied to AOL.

Many of these video chat programs use WebRTC and related standards, but messaging applications have resisted any kind of standardization. (XMPP is popular for cops, firefighters, and soldiers, but ordinary people see those angle brackets and you've lost them)

Most people don't understand the real differences between the platforms and the benefits they get from them, but they know that every time your company partners with a customer or vendor that uses Slack you end up logging into multiple instances of Slack. Often they make you a channel to talk about your project, but for them it is one of 50 channels they monitor on Slack that are about anything from cat photos to immediate crises, so you might not get any replies if you hop in a week later.

Some people I talk to want me to install WhatsApp, other people want me to install everyone else.

The rest of the world gets it: I don't need to buy an iPhone to call other iPhone users, I don't need to have a Verizon plan to call an AT&T customers.

The reason why chat clients don't improve is that they aren't really competing -- if you had a common protocol then chat clients could compete on being better at helping you with your workload. Instead they remain a mechanism for enforcing platform lockin. In the end that's what's likely to happen to Zoom if it runs into any financial turbulence -- company X will buy it because they think they can use it in some way to lock in customers.

If the EU wanted to do something to improve digitial ecosystems it would be making standardized messaging a thing, but it is hard to do that: you can't stop a few high school students from making a walled-garden chat systems, but you really have to stop billion dollar companies from doing it.

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#178
post #75

I work for Google, but not on anything related to Meet. I'm most excited about this because the video/audio quality is much higher. When I use Zoom with friends, everyone is usually 320x240, or maybe 640x480 if there's only one person. Doom was 320x240 in 1993. In Google Meet, I usually see people at 1280x920. A 4k monitor will fit 6 people at that resolution. I value this higher resolution because it makes me feel m…

fwiw, I have found video quality on Meet to be by far the worst out of any video chat app I've ever used. My company pays for g suite but all the video in my google meetings range between 320x240 and flip phone video from 15 years ago, and I swear I'm not exaggerating. This can happen even with a 2 person meeting. I've never had this issue with Zoom.

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#179
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has extremely valid market reasons. Google Hangouts = the original chat+video product which was semi-popular, but never got huge traction and mindshare the way WhatsApp, Slack, the original Skype, or the newer FaceTime did. And now Zoom and Teams. So Google realized it had to compete better against all of those, all of those being very separate communications channels with different priorities. Hangouts could neve…

[edit: deleted. Appear to have been rate limited by HN so I can't reply? so withdrawing from the conversation]

>Despite the fact that FB Messenger is explicitly designed for non-professional use and can do group chats people are still gravitating to Zoom.

Facebook doesn't seem to be secure.

I bet people don't want to have hours of recordings attached to their real name, so creating random account on something like Zoom seems like an great.

Re: Google Meet premium video meetings–free for everyone

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone from the gaia team change the default cookie validity period down by 20 minutes (ie. from 30 days to 29 days, 23 hours, 40 minutes) to resolve this issue?

As silly as it sounds, it would probably resolve this issue perfectly. As I remember, I always got the login prompt at roughly the exact same time into the meeting, suggesting it's just set to expire after a certain amount of whole days.

Google internally is well aware of this, and in fact one internal tool most engineers use actually has an expiry a few hours short of 24h simply to prevent exactly this issue.
Post reply on HN