I find it amusing that congress is seeking to ban E2EE, yet the FTC fining a company that lied about doing it.
Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
121–130 of 438 posts
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#122Where is the consequences addendum?
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#123If Zoom made clear to users that connections were not secured to the same standards as competitors, and that potentially hundreds of employees could be silently listening in on any call, I think that would have prevented them becoming a leader in video conference tech. So the right fine here is their entire market cap. That would put them back at square one, which is where an honest competitor would be right now.
Not defending them in any way - but don't think security was the primary reason for Zoom taking off. It was stability - it just worked and at the same time competitors didn't. Everybody used to have Skype and I would have gladly handed over my data to MS if only it would have been able to do stable video calls. It was often a disaster for just 2-way calls, let alone group.
They took money from many clients to provide a service.
They did not provide the service the advertised: they provided something much inferior (and that's actually unsuitable for many industries).
It's not really really about "what would clients have done otherwise". It's a matter of giving money back.
If you pay me to write a program, and it only does half of what I promise, wouldn't you want [part of] your money back?
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some reports say the whole video conferencing market, being very optimistic, will reach $50B in 2026 (considering Covid-19 - https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/video-conferenc... ) But Zoom, alone, already has a marketcap of $117.534B ( https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ZM/ ) I really think there is an unsustainable distortion happening.
The market being $50B means there are $50B of sales to do per year. Market cap is a multiplier of revenues, easily 10 or 20 for a tech company, that means a $1T market cap to be taken across the videoconference companies. Wondering how numbers can be so high? Count $10 per month * 12 months in a year * 100 million employees in the US... that is $12B per year going to video software!
Market cap is the paper value of the company. It has little to do with the market. Zoom’s planned pivot is into boring markets like business VoIP.
Zoom went bananas because they won the space at a point in time that mattered. FaceTime is too proprietary and lacks features due to E2E, WebEx is run by incompetents, Google Meet is hard to use, and Teams is too complex. There’s a thousand other competitors with a few users.
Speculators poured billions into the consort and the valuation went nuts. That could go away in a week.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market being $50B means there are $50B of sales to do per year. Market cap is a multiplier of revenues, easily 10 or 20 for a tech company, that means a $1T market cap to be taken across the videoconference companies. Wondering how numbers can be so high? Count $10 per month * 12 months in a year * 100 million employees in the US... that is $12B per year going to video software!
Actually, price / earnings (P/E ratio) is typically 10-20 for _any_ company in the S&P 500. When you look at big tech, the numbers are drastically higher: - AMZN: 92 - GOOG: 34 - FB: 33 - NFLX: 76 - AAPL: 35 - MSFT: 35 Compare this to, say, 3M, at 19, or GM with 17. edit: incidentally, apparently Zoom's P/E is... 527, which is grossly inflated even for a tech company. Tesla is also in the same category with a P/E of…
It is, but markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid to paraphrase somewhat famous quip. I was also one of those people who tried shorting TSLA since I believe they are way overvalued. I agree with you, but the market has spoken.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of what was purchased was delivered.
"Here are the keys to your new car" "Where are the wheels?" "Well... we delivered most of what was purchased so you don't get to complain."
Good example. If you bought a $40k car and it didn't come with wheels, the damages would be the amount to remedy the missing wheels, not $40k.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#127If Zoom made clear to users that connections were not secured to the same standards as competitors, and that potentially hundreds of employees could be silently listening in on any call, I think that would have prevented them becoming a leader in video conference tech. So the right fine here is their entire market cap. That would put them back at square one, which is where an honest competitor would be right now.
I don't think people would be calling for this level of punitive fines if Zoom were a Silicon Valley company making misleading claims.
Fun fact, Zoom is a Silicon Valley company making misleading claims. It was started in California originally, not China.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#128I find it amusing that congress is seeking to ban E2EE, yet the FTC fining a company that lied about doing it.
It's not really a contradiction if you think about it.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#129Does it open Zoom to being sued by clients? If a company signed a contract with Zoom in which e2e encryption was stated.
Like a class action lawsuit? I think there have to be evidence of damage done in that case.
Why does there have to be damages? You paid for something, and didn't get it.
Go to the supermarket, but a box that says "ten apples". You get home and open it, there's just five apples. You'll want money back. What "damages" do you have to prove?
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#130Where is the consequences addendum?
There are none.