3 ms·
I'm not sure about "just works", but I am sure about "works" in the sense that is head and shoulders above every other video chat app I've used when it comes to
by devin 7y ago
I'm not sure about "just works", but I am sure about "works" in the sense that is head and shoulders above every other video chat app I've used when it comes to audio and video quality, especially for large numbers of participants, audio sharing, document camera sharing, multiple participants sharing simultaneously, and there are plenty more.
I've never used the web version, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's not the same experience. The video and audio encoding and decoding stuff seems like it just makes more sense as a native app. Given the number of variables that browsers, versions, sandboxing, etc. bring to the equation, I can tell you where I'd spend the majority of my efforts if I were doing video chat: on a great native app. You have a lot more control over that experience, IMHO.
Anyway, your comment reads to me like someone who will never install it, but I would encourage you to at least test out the difference to see why it's become so popular.
- nicoburns 7y agoYeah, the only other video app I've used that approaches the call quality is Slack. I've not tried to use that with more than a handful of people though.
- PetahNZ 7y agoSlack was by far the worst of all the ones we tried.
- girvo 7y agoSlack would be great if my team didn’t constantly have issues with it dropping audio or video altogether when attempting to connect, and that’s if the connection works in the first place! A shame, because we’d love to use only a single app for our comms...