24 ms·

> What does their product do so much better than the others that I'd put up with this shit? I'll share my perspective as an academic. Many of us have adopted Z

> What does their product do so much better than the others that I'd put up with this shit? I'll share my perspective as an academic. Many of us have adopted Zoom, practically overnight, for our teaching, for one-on-one meetings with students, and even for conferences [1]. The answer is: It just works. It's easy. It does what we want it to, with a minimum of fuss. As someone who now has a whole bunch of unanticipated shit to deal with, this is one less thing to worry about. I definitely share your objection in principle. If this situation continues long into the future (a terrifying thought), then perhaps I'll revisit my choice of software. But in the short term, to be honest, I don't much care. [1] https://www.daniellitt.com/agonize/ https://www.daniellitt.com/agonize/

hobs 7y ago
Really trying to figure out a response that isnt flip - but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all?
- wideasleep1 7y ago
  Particularly when excellent privacy-respecting alternatives exist.
  - impendia 7y ago
    I would cheerfully listen to recommendations. And I should add that I'm trying out MS Teams as an alternative. After six days, and multiple e-mails back and forth with our IT department, I think I've almost got it set up properly.
    - andrepd 7y ago
      Jitsi Meet.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - maccard 7y ago
    Such as?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- Xylakant 7y ago
  > but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all? Your answer sort of reads as if the choice of technology is the only friction people are currently dealing with. The situation isn't easy, even using some easy to use technology like zoom. Adding friction will only make things harder for people doing their best in already hard circumstances. It may well exceed their mental budget for friction. I wish widely deployed privacy-respecting solutions were already deployed at scale, people trained in their use and a suitable curriculum available. But that's not where we are and putting more load on already well loaded people will not improve the situation.
  - hobs 7y ago
    No, it really doesn't, which is why I prefaced it with talking about being flip. It asks the question "What is the point of a principle?" I dont think calling privacy a principle is true if you are willing to give it up for something that "just works" - I believe covid is likely one of the biggest problems in the modern age, but during times of hardship we need to cling ever harder to our principles, or consider that maybe it isn't nearly as important to us as we thought.
    - Xylakant 7y ago
      > No, it really doesn't, which is why I prefaced it with talking about being flip. Preface or not, it still reads like that. You're extolling one principle. I entirely agree that privacy is important but should be upheld. But there are other conflicting principles at work here - the list here is in no way complete. * The right to privacy. * The right of pupils to receive an education * The right of teachers to limit the amount of work and energy they need to put into their work. * The right of teachers and pupils (and the general public) to stay at home and evade infection. So glorifying one principle at the expense of others is at best problematic. What's the point of upholding one principle and ignore that at the moment, it conflicts with others? And that's why your absolutism on one principle to me still reads flip - or at least ill considered - even if you preface it with "I don't want to be flip."
      - 7y ago
- matz1 7y ago
  In the end, its cost vs benefit. Does the benefit overweight the cost ? For most people, including me the answer is Yes.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    But are you excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way? If you're in a position of authority it is up to you to minimise the violation.
    - matz1 7y ago
      It goes both way, if you force privacy, you too are excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way
      - angry_octet 7y ago
        The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution). A person with a moral (and likely legal) obligation to protect individual privacy cannot lightly discard someone's fundamental rights to favour the marginal benefit of others. We haven't seen a Zoom log found in an open S3 bucket yet, or a leak via fb, but experience says that it is only a matter of time. So if you're going to mandate Zoom, own the risk. Mitigation is possible: provide recorded streams for secured download (if safe/ethical/notified to record other participants!); provide a work laptop with a non-identifying config instead of a BYOD; many other options.
        matz1 7y ago
        >The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution) If you are going that way then likewise, there is always someone somewhere could die because the software doesn't work because they prioritize privacy. Beside, The reason we have growing acceptance for the LGBT is because of the openness and transparency. That won't happen if we have perfect privacy. Yes is true that leak is only matter of time, so its even more infeasible to maintain privacy. The solution should be to assume information is public as much as we can and fix the issue that arise from that.
- impendia 7y ago
  So some company I don't like will advertise at me. I don't like it, but I don't care that much. I am prioritizing. During the present COVID-19 situation, my top two priorities are (1) maintain my health, including my mental health, and refrain from posing a health hazard to others, and (2) maintain my relationships with my students, colleagues, and collaborators. As I see it, if I give some skeezy private company some personal information by accident, then I am making a personal sacrifice, and not all that big of one. I'm trying to worry about my duties to others first.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > So some company I don't like will advertise at me. I don't like it, but I don't care that much. You're normalizing it and making your students use it though, so it's really not "it affects me, but I don't care enough", it affects others as well. And let's not kid ourselves: once it's established, nobody will switch to something else, because they'd have to explain and guide everyone they want to talk to to install another app etc.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Likewise you are affecting others too by telling people to install other app. Lets not kid ourselves not everyone value privacy the same.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        Possibly, though my personal experience is that people differ mostly on their understanding of privacy issues, not their valuation of privacy. Somebody that doesn't fully understand how much you can tell about someone just by looking at their call meta data isn't concerned about meta data. I've found most alter their stance when they get a better understanding of the issue.
    - impendia 7y ago
      The first is a fair criticism, point taken. Your second point I disagree with; I think if people raise objections, encourage people to switch, and volunteer to shepherd others through the technical details -- then people will be agreeable, and we'll see a shift which will gradually become pervasive.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  If you are going to require students/employees to use a tool like Zoom (and choosing it for lectures is definitely making it a requirement) then you are obligated to, at the very least, seek informed consent from students/staff as to what privacy they are giving up. And if someone doesn't consent (voluntarily), you have to seek alternatives and mitigations. If you're a Comp Sci or Engineering prof you really have an obligation to try harder. You have the capability to explain mitigation techniques (virtual machines, sandboxing, using temporary email addresses, VPNs). Longer term I think we will see a host of Zoom competitors, because really there is nothing special in the client. Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Also, I think the grid of faces approach is just awful. Many people have been working on VR meeting systems which have significant advantages for multiperson communication (i.e. discussion vs broadcast). Lecture/theatre VTC (which provides an aggregated feedback signal to the presenter) is completely unmet by Zoom. So once we're past the hump the field will broaden, and at that point the privacy requirements have to be enforced rigourously.
  - gowld 7y ago
    > Longer term I think we will see a host of Zoom competitors, because really there is nothing special in the client. Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Then why hasn't it, despite far more work and funding than Zoom, for over a decade? This is a "I could have invented Facebook" comment. Things are harder than you suggest.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      Google notoriously loses interest in what isn't hip at the moment. I think they might notice this market segment. Also I've done 300+ participant A/V conferencing systems, it isn't the client part that is hard, its the authentication, directory and latency that becomes difficult, and google already has that pretty well sorted.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    > Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Is this actually better from a privacy perspective? Sounds like abandoning the frying pan for the fire...
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Real life is full of tradeoffs. Accept it, and you'll be happier.
tboughen 7y ago
I’m interested to hear the type of institution and age range of students with whom you are having 1 to 1 video calls. I’m a teacher in an 11-18 secondary school in the U.K., and we have been instructed to avoid 1 to 1s with students as a safeguarding risk. I’m not casting any aspersions here, I’m only interested in comparing notes with a fellow teacher.
- bobbiechen 7y ago
  (U.S. here and didn't recognize the term, link for others' convenience) Safeguarding is a term used in the United Kingdom and Ireland to denote measures to protect the health, well-being and human rights of individuals, which allow people — especially children, young people and vulnerable adults — to live free from abuse, harm and neglect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguarding
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Probably, graduation and post-grad students. In undergrad 1 to 1 also happens, but they are less frequent.
  - xeromal 7y ago
    Office hours usually end up 1 on 1 too.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  The first line of their profile says: > Mathematics (assistant) professor at the University of South Carolina.
- impendia 7y ago
  University students, graduate and undergraduate. 1 to 1's are totally common and accepted in a university setting. You're generally supposed to leave your office door open (when having them in person), but otherwise this doesn't raise any eyebrows.
- jedberg 7y ago
  I'm not a teacher but my sister in law is. Her day is now just 1 on 1 with each of her students back to back. They are all under 13. In general it's not considered a risk because their parents are usually nearby if not actually on the call.
api 7y ago
I also doesn't max out all four cores of my laptop and run my fans like a hair dryer like all the web based ones I've tried.
nathankunicki 7y ago
> The answer is: It just works. It's easy. It does what we want it to, with a minimum of fuss. I guess I'd like to know the details of how its easier than the other of myriad of products on the market for you? At my company we use Slack Video calls, WebEx, and Zoom, and they seem as identical as each other (I'd argue Slack is easiest since we're all logged into it all the time, but that's us).
- e40 7y ago
  Slack for video calls was terrible (when I used it last year). Slack removed screen sharing, which means I can't easily do screen sharing and debugging on the same call. WebEx and G2M are much less easy to use.
  - noisem4ker 7y ago
    I'm using screen sharing on Slack just fine.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      Parent may be talking about remote control through a screenshare? It used to be a feature, and then they removed it.
      - e40 7y ago
        Yes, that's what I'm talking about.
    - nemothekid 7y ago
      Slack screenshare doesn't work at all at iOS (As in if you are on an iPad/iPhone, and someone else screenshares, you can't see their screen at all)
    - e40 7y ago
      Remote control was removed, which is an important feature for many of us.
holri 7y ago
It is a trap. Traps are especially effective and harmful in panic mode when everyone catches the first bait. In the long run, free software (not as in beer) is much better for everyone. Especially in panic it is essentiel to think thoroughly through your decisions.
- thoraway1010 7y ago
  Except the horrible "trap" is not something many people care much about. Zoom seems VERY focused on making stuff easy to use. They clearly are doing things like installing in user folders etc to get around organization "protections". Same thing with the crazy web server launcher. Yes - creates privacy / security risks but also made things marginally easier. Same with the Facebook SDK integration etc. They are going for ease of use FIRST. HN is treating zoom as if it's some devil software. Part of the REASON for it's success (vs the fully end to end encrypted offerings etc) is because it DOESN'T emphasize security / privacy, it can be installed in a shadow IT manner etc. That is why it is successful.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    >Except the horrible "trap" is not something many people care much about. What makes you so sure?
    - thoraway1010 7y ago
      Because the security / privacy focused video conferencing apps are getting no traction. Because the tradeoffs for security / privacy (more difficult onboarding for an individual on new devices, more difficult inviting, poorer video quality etc) seem to have scared people away from those options (which do exist) and into the arms of zoom which has made ease of use it's entire focus. You can set your own meeting room to be join-able BY ANYONE with an ID that DOES NOT CHANGE. Terrible security - great convenience. Business and educators get feedback if students etc are using other programs other than zoom while on call. TERRIBLE for privacy (zoom tracking which windows are foreground etc) - nice convenience for teachers and bosses who like this. At every turn, zoom has emphasized things like this.
hashmymustache 7y ago
At a major academic medical center, we’ve been using it for massive town hall and department meetings and it has been working flawlessly. Very impressed.
bchociej 7y ago
I mean, so do all the major WebRTC video chat programs. Google Meet is absolutely painless, and I can use it in the browser instead of downloading Zoom's very sketchy application.
- zmk_ 7y ago
  But Google made Hangouts/Meet G Suite only. My university is not using G Suite beyond student email (employees have outlook). I only started using Zoom now and it solves a lot of my problems: virtual backgrounds while talking to students in my bedroom, recording my lectures, handling large live streams (50+ people), painless set up for non-tech-savvy users. The only problem I had is that it would corrupt sound from my mic about every hour in a 4 hour stream. They will be successful, but in part because other chose not to be.
CydeWeys 7y ago
> The answer is: It just works. I've actually found the opposite to be true. Google Meet is an example of a product that just works. Zoom, by contrast, pushes you very heavily into downloading and installing an application on every device you want to use it with, and provides a secondary degraded experience in the browser if you find the right link to use it (which you have to do EVERY SINGLE TIME; there doesn't seem to be a way to permanently opt out of the "install this application" nag flow).
- alanfranz 7y ago
  Hangouts Meet is for G Suite users only. No way to use it for free.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    in free gmail calendar, click create a new meeting, add conference, pick hangouts, done? Wonder why this is apparently not working? I don't pay for gmail. I'm not using it in a domain.
    - shoyer 7y ago
      The Hangouts video meetings you have access to do in public Gmail/Calendar are not the same product as "Hangouts Meet", which is only available with a G-Suite account. Meet is definitely a more polished experience.
      - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
        I also use the commercial google hangouts, I struggle to think of the differences. I know there's the annoying (must be in the domain to join a meeting without being invited) thing. Uh, is recording only in the paid product? I'm just not seeing it. Maybe there's some limit in the free product? it works for just my group of friends.
    - alanfranz 7y ago
      I thought Hangouts "classic" was phased out already. But they have extended its life until June 2020. Not many differences with meet, but not available forever.
chronofar 7y ago
> The answer is: It just works. It's easy. It does what we want it to, with a minimum of fuss. I think the real reason is "it's just what everyone else was doing." All of these apps "just work," as someone who has used a veritable gaggle let me tell you there's scarce difference between them. Except zoom makes it more difficult to join without the app (others work in the browser outright, zoom tricks you into installing). Zoom I think just happens to be one of the trendiest. But with this kind of behavior there's really no reason to use them.
- ummonk 7y ago
  Most of them require you to create an account, often confirming an email in the process, which is a big barrier to setting it up. Accountless video conferencing is valuable if you don't have everyone at your company setup with Google or 365 accounts.
- privong 7y ago
  > I think the real reason is "it's just what everyone else was doing." I can't speak for others. But for me, using Zoom is really because it worked better than everything else I'd tried (Skype, Google Hangouts, WebEx, rolling my own SIP server). That was parts: Linux software reliability (WebEx, Skype), limits on the number of people that could join meetings (Hangouts), and effort to talk my collaborators into installing new software (SIP+Jitsi). A bonus is that my employer had an institutional Zoom account. I've been happily using Zoom for 2-3 years now. I'm unhappy about these privacy issues that are being discovered/discussed now and I kinda feel like I should have looked into it. I'm sure there is a bandwagon effect happening, but there was also a real component of it working better than other solutions.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    I hear people talk about meetings not working for them. I can't understand the issue. I've used it for many years across groups that are small or large, personal, commerical, whatever, macs, all phones, linux, windows. At my new company they wanted to pay a license to use zoom. I asked why don't we just use meetings for free? The answer was it makes us look professional. That's where zoom is. There are dozens are alternatives.
gentleman11 7y ago
> I definitely share your objection in principle. If this situation continues long into the future (a terrifying thought), then perhaps I'll revisit my choice of software. But in the short term, to be honest, I don't much care. Do the students not care?
- madwhitehatter 7y ago
  This goes much deeper than add data. The collect PowerPoints and record and transcribe all calls this is. And it’s unencrypted
neumann 7y ago
it kinda works. I've had a lot more luck running massive meetings with the open source and free alternative jitsi. Their offering https://meet.jit.si/ https://meet.jit.si/ is amazingly simple with no installs and definitely 'Just works' to the point that in lockdown I use it for family catchups, large friend coffee + beer catch ups and all meetings because all I need to do is send people a URL and they literally just have to click it with no plugin installs etc.

hobs 7y ago

Really trying to figure out a response that isnt flip - but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all?

wideasleep1 7y ago
Particularly when excellent privacy-respecting alternatives exist.
- impendia 7y ago
  I would cheerfully listen to recommendations. And I should add that I'm trying out MS Teams as an alternative. After six days, and multiple e-mails back and forth with our IT department, I think I've almost got it set up properly.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    Jitsi Meet.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- maccard 7y ago
  Such as?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Xylakant 7y ago
> but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all? Your answer sort of reads as if the choice of technology is the only friction people are currently dealing with. The situation isn't easy, even using some easy to use technology like zoom. Adding friction will only make things harder for people doing their best in already hard circumstances. It may well exceed their mental budget for friction. I wish widely deployed privacy-respecting solutions were already deployed at scale, people trained in their use and a suitable curriculum available. But that's not where we are and putting more load on already well loaded people will not improve the situation.
- hobs 7y ago
  No, it really doesn't, which is why I prefaced it with talking about being flip. It asks the question "What is the point of a principle?" I dont think calling privacy a principle is true if you are willing to give it up for something that "just works" - I believe covid is likely one of the biggest problems in the modern age, but during times of hardship we need to cling ever harder to our principles, or consider that maybe it isn't nearly as important to us as we thought.
  - Xylakant 7y ago
    > No, it really doesn't, which is why I prefaced it with talking about being flip. Preface or not, it still reads like that. You're extolling one principle. I entirely agree that privacy is important but should be upheld. But there are other conflicting principles at work here - the list here is in no way complete. * The right to privacy. * The right of pupils to receive an education * The right of teachers to limit the amount of work and energy they need to put into their work. * The right of teachers and pupils (and the general public) to stay at home and evade infection. So glorifying one principle at the expense of others is at best problematic. What's the point of upholding one principle and ignore that at the moment, it conflicts with others? And that's why your absolutism on one principle to me still reads flip - or at least ill considered - even if you preface it with "I don't want to be flip."
    - 7y ago
matz1 7y ago
In the end, its cost vs benefit. Does the benefit overweight the cost ? For most people, including me the answer is Yes.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  But are you excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way? If you're in a position of authority it is up to you to minimise the violation.
  - matz1 7y ago
    It goes both way, if you force privacy, you too are excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution). A person with a moral (and likely legal) obligation to protect individual privacy cannot lightly discard someone's fundamental rights to favour the marginal benefit of others. We haven't seen a Zoom log found in an open S3 bucket yet, or a leak via fb, but experience says that it is only a matter of time. So if you're going to mandate Zoom, own the risk. Mitigation is possible: provide recorded streams for secured download (if safe/ethical/notified to record other participants!); provide a work laptop with a non-identifying config instead of a BYOD; many other options.
      - matz1 7y ago
        >The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution) If you are going that way then likewise, there is always someone somewhere could die because the software doesn't work because they prioritize privacy. Beside, The reason we have growing acceptance for the LGBT is because of the openness and transparency. That won't happen if we have perfect privacy. Yes is true that leak is only matter of time, so its even more infeasible to maintain privacy. The solution should be to assume information is public as much as we can and fix the issue that arise from that.
impendia 7y ago
So some company I don't like will advertise at me. I don't like it, but I don't care that much. I am prioritizing. During the present COVID-19 situation, my top two priorities are (1) maintain my health, including my mental health, and refrain from posing a health hazard to others, and (2) maintain my relationships with my students, colleagues, and collaborators. As I see it, if I give some skeezy private company some personal information by accident, then I am making a personal sacrifice, and not all that big of one. I'm trying to worry about my duties to others first.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > So some company I don't like will advertise at me. I don't like it, but I don't care that much. You're normalizing it and making your students use it though, so it's really not "it affects me, but I don't care enough", it affects others as well. And let's not kid ourselves: once it's established, nobody will switch to something else, because they'd have to explain and guide everyone they want to talk to to install another app etc.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Likewise you are affecting others too by telling people to install other app. Lets not kid ourselves not everyone value privacy the same.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Possibly, though my personal experience is that people differ mostly on their understanding of privacy issues, not their valuation of privacy. Somebody that doesn't fully understand how much you can tell about someone just by looking at their call meta data isn't concerned about meta data. I've found most alter their stance when they get a better understanding of the issue.
  - impendia 7y ago
    The first is a fair criticism, point taken. Your second point I disagree with; I think if people raise objections, encourage people to switch, and volunteer to shepherd others through the technical details -- then people will be agreeable, and we'll see a shift which will gradually become pervasive.
angry_octet 7y ago
If you are going to require students/employees to use a tool like Zoom (and choosing it for lectures is definitely making it a requirement) then you are obligated to, at the very least, seek informed consent from students/staff as to what privacy they are giving up. And if someone doesn't consent (voluntarily), you have to seek alternatives and mitigations. If you're a Comp Sci or Engineering prof you really have an obligation to try harder. You have the capability to explain mitigation techniques (virtual machines, sandboxing, using temporary email addresses, VPNs). Longer term I think we will see a host of Zoom competitors, because really there is nothing special in the client. Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Also, I think the grid of faces approach is just awful. Many people have been working on VR meeting systems which have significant advantages for multiperson communication (i.e. discussion vs broadcast). Lecture/theatre VTC (which provides an aggregated feedback signal to the presenter) is completely unmet by Zoom. So once we're past the hump the field will broaden, and at that point the privacy requirements have to be enforced rigourously.
- gowld 7y ago
  > Longer term I think we will see a host of Zoom competitors, because really there is nothing special in the client. Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Then why hasn't it, despite far more work and funding than Zoom, for over a decade? This is a "I could have invented Facebook" comment. Things are harder than you suggest.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    Google notoriously loses interest in what isn't hip at the moment. I think they might notice this market segment. Also I've done 300+ participant A/V conferencing systems, it isn't the client part that is hard, its the authentication, directory and latency that becomes difficult, and google already has that pretty well sorted.
- klyrs 7y ago
  > Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Is this actually better from a privacy perspective? Sounds like abandoning the frying pan for the fire...
BurningFrog 7y ago
Real life is full of tradeoffs. Accept it, and you'll be happier.

tboughen 7y ago

I’m interested to hear the type of institution and age range of students with whom you are having 1 to 1 video calls. I’m a teacher in an 11-18 secondary school in the U.K., and we have been instructed to avoid 1 to 1s with students as a safeguarding risk. I’m not casting any aspersions here, I’m only interested in comparing notes with a fellow teacher.

bobbiechen 7y ago
(U.S. here and didn't recognize the term, link for others' convenience) Safeguarding is a term used in the United Kingdom and Ireland to denote measures to protect the health, well-being and human rights of individuals, which allow people — especially children, young people and vulnerable adults — to live free from abuse, harm and neglect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguarding
marcosdumay 7y ago
Probably, graduation and post-grad students. In undergrad 1 to 1 also happens, but they are less frequent.
- xeromal 7y ago
  Office hours usually end up 1 on 1 too.
StavrosK 7y ago
The first line of their profile says: > Mathematics (assistant) professor at the University of South Carolina.
impendia 7y ago
University students, graduate and undergraduate. 1 to 1's are totally common and accepted in a university setting. You're generally supposed to leave your office door open (when having them in person), but otherwise this doesn't raise any eyebrows.
jedberg 7y ago
I'm not a teacher but my sister in law is. Her day is now just 1 on 1 with each of her students back to back. They are all under 13. In general it's not considered a risk because their parents are usually nearby if not actually on the call.

api 7y ago

I also doesn't max out all four cores of my laptop and run my fans like a hair dryer like all the web based ones I've tried.

nathankunicki 7y ago

> The answer is: It just works. It's easy. It does what we want it to, with a minimum of fuss. I guess I'd like to know the details of how its easier than the other of myriad of products on the market for you? At my company we use Slack Video calls, WebEx, and Zoom, and they seem as identical as each other (I'd argue Slack is easiest since we're all logged into it all the time, but that's us).

e40 7y ago
Slack for video calls was terrible (when I used it last year). Slack removed screen sharing, which means I can't easily do screen sharing and debugging on the same call. WebEx and G2M are much less easy to use.
- noisem4ker 7y ago
  I'm using screen sharing on Slack just fine.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Parent may be talking about remote control through a screenshare? It used to be a feature, and then they removed it.
    - e40 7y ago
      Yes, that's what I'm talking about.
  - nemothekid 7y ago
    Slack screenshare doesn't work at all at iOS (As in if you are on an iPad/iPhone, and someone else screenshares, you can't see their screen at all)
  - e40 7y ago
    Remote control was removed, which is an important feature for many of us.

holri 7y ago

It is a trap. Traps are especially effective and harmful in panic mode when everyone catches the first bait. In the long run, free software (not as in beer) is much better for everyone. Especially in panic it is essentiel to think thoroughly through your decisions.

thoraway1010 7y ago
Except the horrible "trap" is not something many people care much about. Zoom seems VERY focused on making stuff easy to use. They clearly are doing things like installing in user folders etc to get around organization "protections". Same thing with the crazy web server launcher. Yes - creates privacy / security risks but also made things marginally easier. Same with the Facebook SDK integration etc. They are going for ease of use FIRST. HN is treating zoom as if it's some devil software. Part of the REASON for it's success (vs the fully end to end encrypted offerings etc) is because it DOESN'T emphasize security / privacy, it can be installed in a shadow IT manner etc. That is why it is successful.
- rhizome 7y ago
  >Except the horrible "trap" is not something many people care much about. What makes you so sure?
  - thoraway1010 7y ago
    Because the security / privacy focused video conferencing apps are getting no traction. Because the tradeoffs for security / privacy (more difficult onboarding for an individual on new devices, more difficult inviting, poorer video quality etc) seem to have scared people away from those options (which do exist) and into the arms of zoom which has made ease of use it's entire focus. You can set your own meeting room to be join-able BY ANYONE with an ID that DOES NOT CHANGE. Terrible security - great convenience. Business and educators get feedback if students etc are using other programs other than zoom while on call. TERRIBLE for privacy (zoom tracking which windows are foreground etc) - nice convenience for teachers and bosses who like this. At every turn, zoom has emphasized things like this.

hashmymustache 7y ago

At a major academic medical center, we’ve been using it for massive town hall and department meetings and it has been working flawlessly. Very impressed.

bchociej 7y ago

I mean, so do all the major WebRTC video chat programs. Google Meet is absolutely painless, and I can use it in the browser instead of downloading Zoom's very sketchy application.

zmk_ 7y ago
But Google made Hangouts/Meet G Suite only. My university is not using G Suite beyond student email (employees have outlook). I only started using Zoom now and it solves a lot of my problems: virtual backgrounds while talking to students in my bedroom, recording my lectures, handling large live streams (50+ people), painless set up for non-tech-savvy users. The only problem I had is that it would corrupt sound from my mic about every hour in a 4 hour stream. They will be successful, but in part because other chose not to be.

CydeWeys 7y ago

> The answer is: It just works. I've actually found the opposite to be true. Google Meet is an example of a product that just works. Zoom, by contrast, pushes you very heavily into downloading and installing an application on every device you want to use it with, and provides a secondary degraded experience in the browser if you find the right link to use it (which you have to do EVERY SINGLE TIME; there doesn't seem to be a way to permanently opt out of the "install this application" nag flow).

alanfranz 7y ago
Hangouts Meet is for G Suite users only. No way to use it for free.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  in free gmail calendar, click create a new meeting, add conference, pick hangouts, done? Wonder why this is apparently not working? I don't pay for gmail. I'm not using it in a domain.
  - shoyer 7y ago
    The Hangouts video meetings you have access to do in public Gmail/Calendar are not the same product as "Hangouts Meet", which is only available with a G-Suite account. Meet is definitely a more polished experience.
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      I also use the commercial google hangouts, I struggle to think of the differences. I know there's the annoying (must be in the domain to join a meeting without being invited) thing. Uh, is recording only in the paid product? I'm just not seeing it. Maybe there's some limit in the free product? it works for just my group of friends.
  - alanfranz 7y ago
    I thought Hangouts "classic" was phased out already. But they have extended its life until June 2020. Not many differences with meet, but not available forever.

chronofar 7y ago

> The answer is: It just works. It's easy. It does what we want it to, with a minimum of fuss. I think the real reason is "it's just what everyone else was doing." All of these apps "just work," as someone who has used a veritable gaggle let me tell you there's scarce difference between them. Except zoom makes it more difficult to join without the app (others work in the browser outright, zoom tricks you into installing). Zoom I think just happens to be one of the trendiest. But with this kind of behavior there's really no reason to use them.

ummonk 7y ago
Most of them require you to create an account, often confirming an email in the process, which is a big barrier to setting it up. Accountless video conferencing is valuable if you don't have everyone at your company setup with Google or 365 accounts.
privong 7y ago
> I think the real reason is "it's just what everyone else was doing." I can't speak for others. But for me, using Zoom is really because it worked better than everything else I'd tried (Skype, Google Hangouts, WebEx, rolling my own SIP server). That was parts: Linux software reliability (WebEx, Skype), limits on the number of people that could join meetings (Hangouts), and effort to talk my collaborators into installing new software (SIP+Jitsi). A bonus is that my employer had an institutional Zoom account. I've been happily using Zoom for 2-3 years now. I'm unhappy about these privacy issues that are being discovered/discussed now and I kinda feel like I should have looked into it. I'm sure there is a bandwagon effect happening, but there was also a real component of it working better than other solutions.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  I hear people talk about meetings not working for them. I can't understand the issue. I've used it for many years across groups that are small or large, personal, commerical, whatever, macs, all phones, linux, windows. At my new company they wanted to pay a license to use zoom. I asked why don't we just use meetings for free? The answer was it makes us look professional. That's where zoom is. There are dozens are alternatives.

gentleman11 7y ago

> I definitely share your objection in principle. If this situation continues long into the future (a terrifying thought), then perhaps I'll revisit my choice of software. But in the short term, to be honest, I don't much care. Do the students not care?

madwhitehatter 7y ago
This goes much deeper than add data. The collect PowerPoints and record and transcribe all calls this is. And it’s unencrypted

neumann 7y ago

it kinda works. I've had a lot more luck running massive meetings with the open source and free alternative jitsi. Their offering https://meet.jit.si/ https://meet.jit.si/ is amazingly simple with no installs and definitely 'Just works' to the point that in lockdown I use it for family catchups, large friend coffee + beer catch ups and all meetings because all I need to do is send people a URL and they literally just have to click it with no plugin installs etc.