291–300 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WebRTC is much better at having "consistently good video quality" as this benchmark convincingly shows: https://jitsi.org/news/a-simple-congestion-test-for-zoom/
On a 1:1 video call. There a dozens of good tools for that - show me a good webrtc app that can handle a 50 user video call well. Or even 10-15 users.
I don't like zoom either, but what exactly made them the HN punching bag of the month? Ad/surveillance giants like Google or FB are typically spoken of with notes of reverence and awe on here. Zoom gets lit-up for sending data to FB, but FB gets a pass? I don't know I just can't get into the mood. extinguishes torch in moat .
lacker put it particularly nicely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22814338
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have 103,000 employees. It adds up.
That's only $24 million per year /s
I mean, Google bans MS Office from employees' computers as well (with special-case exceptions), so they use Docs instead. Since Google has Meet (Hangouts), this isn't really surprising. It mainly sucks for when an employee (especially in sales) has a call with a client that uses Zoom and can't use Meet, because then you're forced to dial in, which just puts you at a disadvantage when everyone can see everyone's face…
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…
It's not just the money it's also additional security vulns to defend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. A lot of tools barely recognize webcams or desktop mics. You’re expected to dial in, which means being tied to whatever terrible audio quality the phone bridge provides for talking to 20 people.
wait what, are you using the DOS-zoom client? Or how is it, that everyone else got general drivers for their devices so applications can use standardized APIs and "just work"
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.
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?
That’s pretty embarrassing for google if their own employees prefer zoom over google hangouts.
- your friends set up a zoom happy hour - current personal laptop is fubar or super old/unsupported - you use work laptop, installing zoom
As someone not in sales, I have never seen anyone try to use Zoom for actual work meetings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only $24 million per year /s
Just because Google has a lot of money doesn’t mean they’ll go wasting it on software licenses. 24 million might not even come close to what they make per year, but they still have to be considerate on what they spend their money on.
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.