Live data from Hacker News

Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

buzzfeednews.com

281–290 of 450 posts

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#281
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google’s reputation as an employer stems in large part from rejecting that belief, and more generally the enterprise bureaucratic culture it lives in. Engineers aren’t clamoring to get into the kinds of companies where IT needs to pre-approve software for their workstations.

Most Google engineers don't have root on their own machines anymore.

That's not true; you can use "sudo" to get root access on gLinux desktops and servers.

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#282
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS Office isn't "banned" from employees' computers at Google. If you need it (and some do) you must request it specifically, because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Same thing with any piece of commercial software: for example, I have Adobe Photoshop on my Google laptop, and I had to request it because it costs Google a few hundred bucks, and most people don't need it at all. Before Googl…

> because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Google is the fourth biggest public company in the world as measured by market cap. A Microsoft 365 "E3" license is $20/user/month. They can afford it. This restriction is entirely about eating your own dogfood.

It’s an exception, it’s not about ability to afford.

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#283
post #213
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Google 2006-2010, and from where I sat, Google's biggest problems were (1) rapid erosion of corporate culture over that time frame and (2) weak project management. A friend was managing a project on a shoestring budget. Upper management (C-suite) had reviewed the idea and green-lit it. He had been told Larry and Sergei in particular had voiced support. He got it done ahead of schedule and under budget by…

Your timelines are incorrect there. TacoTown is Buzz which was launched in 2010. Wave was launched in 2009.

Wow. Thanks. Hard to believe my memory is that far off. I wonder which events I'm mixing up around the Buzz launch.

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#284
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Google is the fourth biggest public company in the world as measured by market cap. A Microsoft 365 "E3" license is $20/user/month. They can afford it. This restriction is entirely about eating your own dogfood.

They have 103,000 employees. It adds up.

That's only $24 million per year /s

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#285
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS Office isn't "banned" from employees' computers at Google. If you need it (and some do) you must request it specifically, because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Same thing with any piece of commercial software: for example, I have Adobe Photoshop on my Google laptop, and I had to request it because it costs Google a few hundred bucks, and most people don't need it at all. Before Googl…

> because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Google is the fourth biggest public company in the world as measured by market cap. A Microsoft 365 "E3" license is $20/user/month. They can afford it. This restriction is entirely about eating your own dogfood.

$20/user/month is tens of millions of dollars every year for Google. Sure, they can afford it, but I'm quite sure they have better things to spend money on.

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#286
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS Office isn't "banned" from employees' computers at Google. If you need it (and some do) you must request it specifically, because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Same thing with any piece of commercial software: for example, I have Adobe Photoshop on my Google laptop, and I had to request it because it costs Google a few hundred bucks, and most people don't need it at all. Before Googl…

> because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Google is the fourth biggest public company in the world as measured by market cap. A Microsoft 365 "E3" license is $20/user/month. They can afford it. This restriction is entirely about eating your own dogfood.

"Google is the fourth biggest public company" -- That's exactly why they wouldn't want 365 company wide

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#287
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS Office isn't "banned" from employees' computers at Google. If you need it (and some do) you must request it specifically, because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Same thing with any piece of commercial software: for example, I have Adobe Photoshop on my Google laptop, and I had to request it because it costs Google a few hundred bucks, and most people don't need it at all. Before Googl…

> because it costs Google a nontrivial amount of money for every user. Google is the fourth biggest public company in the world as measured by market cap. A Microsoft 365 "E3" license is $20/user/month. They can afford it. This restriction is entirely about eating your own dogfood.

Yes, we can afford it, and that's why if you want MS Office you click a button on a web page and get it immediately. But why would we throw away money by having it installed by default?

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#288
post #244

A more existential question is why the Google and MSFT with 'All the King's Horses and All the King's Men' can't make a basic, reliable, video conf . I understand there are some business reasons here and there (MS wants people on Teams not Skype) but it doesn't matter. 'Basic Video' should be as common, robust and reliable as making a phone call.

All of our meetings at Google are using GVC (aka Google Meet from gSuites), and while there are people who have reported problems (mostly in low bandwidth situations and/or using Firefox), my experience is that it is quite reliable. I've had video conferences from my Dad's Senior Center (obviously, pre-COVID-19) using a MiFi box, and there things were more reliable if I turned off my camera, but other than that, I've personally never had any problems using Google Meet from either a Linux box running ChromeOS, or a Chromebook. In fact, I've never had to worry about attending meetings remotely so much that I really can't speak to the reports of people complaining about Google Meet being unreliable.

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#289
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jitsi is the worst in my experience, particularly with many people (ie more than two or three).

My experience: On one computer it froze Firefox. On another computer it crashed Firefox. On my phone (Jitsi Meet via F-Droid): I once had a big meeting where it seemed like only call-in users could hear me, another time during a rather large meeting the application crashed, and recently I had a successful conference with 4 people. The phone application had a few updates between the failures and the success, so perhap…

well they straight out tell you that firefox is not the browser to use it in at the moment. Android, iOS, and Electron apps all work seamless with me.

Considering your alternatives with zoom clients being banned it's not that far of a stretch.

Re: Google bans Zoom from employees' computers

#290
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jitsi is the worst in my experience, particularly with many people (ie more than two or three).

I was planning to try it out. Can you explain what hasn't worked well for you?

If you avoid firefox and stick to either Chrome or the unofficial (but perfectly working) electron app I've had zero issues. Using the free service (not a self hosted instance) I've had several calls with 10-20 (all video) people and not a single hiccup.

If you are using firefox you will encounter issues

Post reply on HN