zlacker

[parent] [thread] 15 comments
1. abeced+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-08-06 13:51:08
Why not switch? I've had good experiences with competitors. I don't know if they're as nice for mass meetings instead of one-to-one or small groups, but at least for the chats I've had, there's never been any reason to go to Zoom.

(I care more about spyware, privacy, and user sovereignty than AI training.)

replies(6): >>landge+I >>ta1243+C2 >>lucb1e+b3 >>jimmas+Qj >>qingch+cC >>stubis+DL1
2. landge+I[view] [source] 2023-08-06 13:56:24
>>abeced+(OP)
Because "company policies"
replies(1): >>hiepph+d01
3. ta1243+C2[view] [source] 2023-08-06 14:06:32
>>abeced+(OP)
Presumably Microsoft does the same with Teams
replies(1): >>e40+t7
4. lucb1e+b3[view] [source] 2023-08-06 14:08:21
>>abeced+(OP)
> I've had good experiences with competitors

That's flipped for me: I've had good experiences with zoom on occasion.

The only time we use Zoom is with US customers, so a handful of times per year I'd estimate. Before covid, I only ever heard of Zoom in the context of laughably bad vulnerabilities; then during covid, suddenly it was a new verb used online to mean video calls. In a world where there are many established players (until 2019-12-31, I had already used: skype/lync, jitsi, discord, signal, whatsapp, wire, telegram, hangouts, webex, jami/ring, and gotomeeting) are already established players, why in the world would anyone ever choose to go with specifically the company that we all laughed at? I don't get it, and it seems most of our customers (mostly european) either

replies(2): >>hot_gr+pC >>nerdpo+W72
◧◩
5. e40+t7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-06 14:32:00
>>ta1243+C2
Or worse. Skype tos were changed to allow eavesdropping for quality control purposes, some time after the purchase.
6. jimmas+Qj[view] [source] 2023-08-06 15:42:56
>>abeced+(OP)
I'd take Zoom over Teams any day. Multiple times lately Teams has completely crashed trying to view a screen share, and viewing a screen share has taken 3 attempts sometimes, or works then breaks if I maximize the window and the presenter has to stop and start /again/. Zoom never gave me these problems.
replies(1): >>abeced+uC
7. qingch+cC[view] [source] 2023-08-06 17:16:57
>>abeced+(OP)
There are situations where it is impossible to switch. For instance, practically all courts use Zoom for remote hearings. When I was in jail Zoom was used for remote visits.
replies(1): >>abeced+fD
◧◩
8. hot_gr+pC[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-06 17:17:52
>>lucb1e+b3
Zoom is the only thing that's worked reliably in conferences for me. Some of those apps work for small calls but aren't made for work meetings.

Our university had premium GSuite accounts for every student beforehand and STILL moved all its classes onto Zoom in 2020, because Meet/Hangouts was (and still is) far behind. Aside from lacking some of Zoom's important features and always having random issues with joining meetings, it totally hogs your CPU to the point of it actually impacting meetings, probably cause it uses VP9 which doesn't have hardware accel on most machines.

◧◩
9. abeced+uC[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-06 17:18:04
>>jimmas+Qj
I haven't tried the Microsoft thing -- sounds like a pain. Elsewhere in these threads there are some recommendations that match my experience.
◧◩
10. abeced+fD[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-06 17:21:11
>>qingch+cC
That's so absurd. Whatever punishment might have been merited, it shouldn't include CCP spyware.
◧◩
11. hiepph+d01[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-06 19:39:43
>>landge+I
This. I personally can switch but how do I communicate with my other colleagues? It's hard to convey people to move into a whole new stack without significant effort.
replies(1): >>abeced+s61
◧◩◪
12. abeced+s61[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-06 20:16:06
>>hiepph+d01
FWIW it's gone all right with Google Meet as the usual suggestion from me -- though as I said, it's been only small-group chats. Most of my colleagues have Chrome.

If really necessary for some particular chat I can use Zoom's in-browser page, ignoring its ridiculous auto-download of the native client. (I didn't even know a page could do that, before.)

13. stubis+DL1[view] [source] 2023-08-07 01:02:38
>>abeced+(OP)
Both ends need to switch, and Zoom has become entrenched and that won't happen without legislation or enforcement of existing legislation that makes recording calls illegal in many jurisdictions (user agreements don't make many illegal things legal).
◧◩
14. nerdpo+W72[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-07 04:20:27
>>lucb1e+b3
When it comes to ridiculous EULA provisions like in this thread, are any of those competitors any better? Of course the open source ones are, but do people actually use those? Maybe they're popular in Europe, but I certainly won't be able to convince a potential American employer to interview me over Jitsi any time soon.
replies(2): >>abeced+u23 >>lucb1e+ts4
◧◩◪
15. abeced+u23[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-07 12:39:37
>>nerdpo+W72
I like Jitsi. What I've mainly used with most people is Google Meet in a browser and I'm not sure what they promise -- which is the main reason I was vague about which alternative at the start of this thread. It shouldn't hurt to list your preferences in preference order when setting up a call.

Google seems more trustworthy than Zoom by a considerable margin, even though I don't treat them as wholly aligned with me, and centralization is a vulnerability.

◧◩◪
16. lucb1e+ts4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-07 18:57:38
>>nerdpo+W72
We use Signal at work, for another data point. We'd use Jitsi if we were bigger and wanted to have yet another service to maintain (it was discussed but we already run quite a few things and it's not like we're a hosting business)
[go to top]