> 2. Related to the above, I have rarely, if ever, had a problem with Zoom quality. Massive factor here. You can use it and it mostly works extremely well. Muc

> 2. Related to the above, I have rarely, if ever, had a problem with Zoom quality. Massive factor here. You can use it and it mostly works extremely well. Much better than almost anything else, including the previously beloved Google Hangouts. In fairness to Microsoft, Teams is probably up there for quality nowadays too, but does lack a good gallery feature. Compare this with WebEx. I can only assume Cisco are gradually winding it down to EOL because I haven't been on a WebEx call that was anything other than an absolute shitshow since around 2014. Even before this it was really just the best of the worst. > 3. The onboarding for new users (basically just share a link) is dead simple. Zoom realized that the install process was a significant barrier and did more than anyone else to lower that barrier (of course, with lots of security/privacy issues to boot, but your average Joe isn't aware of those). Again, agree. Zoom "just works"(TM) for most people, most of the time. And for most people, most of the time, that outweighs any security concerns. It frustrates me that a certain segment of IT security professionals do not understand this. If you're one of these people, you need to realise that security is necessary but not sufficient. Security is a minimum requirement, but it is not even close to the bare minimum. Your product actually needs to be good within the context of what users are trying to achieve with it. It needs to do exactly what it's supposed to without drama and fuss. The product is the means, not the end and so, by implication, is the security product. Human nature is generally to choose things that reduce friction over those that add it, so find a way to build a product that is both secure and gets out of the way.