7 ms·

Not defending them in any way - but don't think security was the primary reason for Zoom taking off. It was stability - it just worked and at the same time comp

by velcro 6y ago

Not defending them in any way - but don't think security was the primary reason for Zoom taking off. It was stability - it just worked and at the same time competitors didn't. Everybody used to have Skype and I would have gladly handed over my data to MS if only it would have been able to do stable video calls. It was often a disaster for just 2-way calls, let alone group.

vaccinator 6y ago
Skype was better before the MS aquisition... and it used to be P2P. It'd be nice if the pre-MS source would leak somehow.
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  I think you may be viewing history through slightly rose-tinted glasses there - I used pre-MS Skype a lot and it was never anywhere near as reliable as Zoom is and didn't support group video chat at all. And the fact that it was P2P meant that some features that everyone would expect to work these days (offline messages, mobile support) were simply not possible at all.
  - vaccinator 6y ago
    Or maybe your long term memory is corrupted?
  - sunshinerag 6y ago
    Amen
- michaelmior 6y ago
  I'm not sure what would be accomplished if the source leaked. Someone would still need to maintain both the client and now a new set of servers. This would be difficult given that Microsoft would almost certainly use whatever means they could to stop this from happening.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Wasn’t Skype pre-MS P2P, not server based?
    - michaelmior 6y ago
      Perhaps. But at minimum there would still be some server necessary for discovery purposes.
      - vel0city 6y ago
        The client application was also the server application. Clients with good connections which appeared to always be online became super nodes which were the directory "servers" you would connect to. The code base contained a long list of previously known super nodes and would attempt to connect to those on first start. As it ran it would keep syncing the list of close super nodes. There were many hundreds of super nodes, so the odds of all of them changing or going offline were pretty slim. I imagine some people at Skype probably kept a few instances of Skype running at the office. So they technically hosted a few super nodes, but it wasn't necessarily that they were running some vastly different server version of the app. It wasn't until Microsoft decided to cut down on the P2P aspect of the app and hardcode only Azure-hosted super nodes into the application that this changed.
        michaelmior 6y ago
        Interesting. I didn't realize that Skype was really P2P. Thanks for sharing :)
        colejohnson66 6y ago
        Isn’t that also how BitTorrent’s DHT works?
  - eznzt 6y ago
    https://escargot.log1p.xyz/ https://escargot.log1p.xyz/
- kristofferR 6y ago
  Fun fact, the original Skype developers also developed the great (for its time) P2P filesharing app/network Kazaa/FastTrack.
londons_explore 6y ago
> don't think security was the primary reason for Zoom taking off. It was stability Stability was the main draw, but company IT departments would have had more power to ban it if there were bigger and clearer risks of corporate secrets escaping.
- mfer 6y ago
  Industrial espionage is real. There are many companies who are concerned about this and take active steps to keep data secret who would likely not have approved zoom use if they'd known e2e encryption wasn't to the level they were told. Some folks are concerned with more than stability and ease of use.
  - Spearchucker 6y ago
    Once can't just delegate responsibility like that. Any company should enage in some form of due dilligence before procuring software. If there are expecations of privacy then those should be proven by the company procuring the software, not the vendor.
    - jfrunyon 6y ago
      So it's okay that Zoom lied because users should have reverse engineered it to verify that what Zoom said about their own product was true?
      - rndgermandude 6y ago
        No, if a company was really worried they shouldn't have opted for a cloud product with a (partly) Chinese-owned company. A lot of companies go through the trouble of giving their employees (especially management) "throw away" phones and/or computers when they send them to "problematic" places, in particular China, but then they install Zoom for their C-level and middle management executives to use, huh?
        6y ago
unityByFreedom 6y ago
> It was stability - it just worked Also due to deception, it auto reinstalled on macs until they were caught.
- eznzt 6y ago
  "this software I uninstalled keeps reinstalling itself. oh well, I guess I will have to use it!" said no one ever.
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    Users were unaware this was happening. "It just worked" because it would install itself in the background unbeknownst to the user, thus obviating the need to take time to install it when needed.
levosmetalo 6y ago
It's much easier to make a stable communication product if you don't need to worry about security and privacy. Just look at the troubles and hurdles Signal messenger need to overcome to implement some features, while the competition that is not so security focused has them since forever.
Xelbair 6y ago
and it could be more stable because it didn't implement e2e encryption.
tonetheman 6y ago
THIS THIS THIS. End users (generally) do not care about security they just need it to work. That is what was great about zoom. The security becomes important after it works.
pulse7 6y ago
It was stability and speed! It uses very little CPU for everything!
WhyNotHugo 6y ago
They took money from many clients to provide a service. They did not provide the service the advertised: they provided something much inferior (and that's actually unsuitable for many industries). It's not really really about "what would clients have done otherwise". It's a matter of giving money back. If you pay me to write a program, and it only does half of what I promise, wouldn't you want [part of] your money back?
SkyPuncher 6y ago
> It was stability - it just worked and at the same time competitors didn't. This is absolutely huge. We've tried Teams (and I have previously used Webex and Hangouts). It seems like there is _always_ one person that struggles with other video services. Can't join, video/audio issues, CPU usage, latency, etc. Painful when 10%+ of a meeting is consumed by getting one last, key person trying to fix their issues.

by velcro 6y ago

vaccinator 6y ago

Skype was better before the MS aquisition... and it used to be P2P. It'd be nice if the pre-MS source would leak somehow.

DangerousPie 6y ago
I think you may be viewing history through slightly rose-tinted glasses there - I used pre-MS Skype a lot and it was never anywhere near as reliable as Zoom is and didn't support group video chat at all. And the fact that it was P2P meant that some features that everyone would expect to work these days (offline messages, mobile support) were simply not possible at all.
- vaccinator 6y ago
  Or maybe your long term memory is corrupted?
- sunshinerag 6y ago
  Amen
michaelmior 6y ago
I'm not sure what would be accomplished if the source leaked. Someone would still need to maintain both the client and now a new set of servers. This would be difficult given that Microsoft would almost certainly use whatever means they could to stop this from happening.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Wasn’t Skype pre-MS P2P, not server based?
  - michaelmior 6y ago
    Perhaps. But at minimum there would still be some server necessary for discovery purposes.
    - vel0city 6y ago
      The client application was also the server application. Clients with good connections which appeared to always be online became super nodes which were the directory "servers" you would connect to. The code base contained a long list of previously known super nodes and would attempt to connect to those on first start. As it ran it would keep syncing the list of close super nodes. There were many hundreds of super nodes, so the odds of all of them changing or going offline were pretty slim. I imagine some people at Skype probably kept a few instances of Skype running at the office. So they technically hosted a few super nodes, but it wasn't necessarily that they were running some vastly different server version of the app. It wasn't until Microsoft decided to cut down on the P2P aspect of the app and hardcode only Azure-hosted super nodes into the application that this changed.
      - michaelmior 6y ago
        Interesting. I didn't realize that Skype was really P2P. Thanks for sharing :)
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        Isn’t that also how BitTorrent’s DHT works?
- eznzt 6y ago
  https://escargot.log1p.xyz/ https://escargot.log1p.xyz/
kristofferR 6y ago
Fun fact, the original Skype developers also developed the great (for its time) P2P filesharing app/network Kazaa/FastTrack.

londons_explore 6y ago

> don't think security was the primary reason for Zoom taking off. It was stability Stability was the main draw, but company IT departments would have had more power to ban it if there were bigger and clearer risks of corporate secrets escaping.

mfer 6y ago
Industrial espionage is real. There are many companies who are concerned about this and take active steps to keep data secret who would likely not have approved zoom use if they'd known e2e encryption wasn't to the level they were told. Some folks are concerned with more than stability and ease of use.
- Spearchucker 6y ago
  Once can't just delegate responsibility like that. Any company should enage in some form of due dilligence before procuring software. If there are expecations of privacy then those should be proven by the company procuring the software, not the vendor.
  - jfrunyon 6y ago
    So it's okay that Zoom lied because users should have reverse engineered it to verify that what Zoom said about their own product was true?
    - rndgermandude 6y ago
      No, if a company was really worried they shouldn't have opted for a cloud product with a (partly) Chinese-owned company. A lot of companies go through the trouble of giving their employees (especially management) "throw away" phones and/or computers when they send them to "problematic" places, in particular China, but then they install Zoom for their C-level and middle management executives to use, huh?
      - 6y ago

unityByFreedom 6y ago

> It was stability - it just worked Also due to deception, it auto reinstalled on macs until they were caught.

eznzt 6y ago
"this software I uninstalled keeps reinstalling itself. oh well, I guess I will have to use it!" said no one ever.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  Users were unaware this was happening. "It just worked" because it would install itself in the background unbeknownst to the user, thus obviating the need to take time to install it when needed.

levosmetalo 6y ago

It's much easier to make a stable communication product if you don't need to worry about security and privacy. Just look at the troubles and hurdles Signal messenger need to overcome to implement some features, while the competition that is not so security focused has them since forever.

Xelbair 6y ago

and it could be more stable because it didn't implement e2e encryption.

tonetheman 6y ago

THIS THIS THIS. End users (generally) do not care about security they just need it to work. That is what was great about zoom. The security becomes important after it works.

pulse7 6y ago

It was stability and speed! It uses very little CPU for everything!

WhyNotHugo 6y ago

They took money from many clients to provide a service. They did not provide the service the advertised: they provided something much inferior (and that's actually unsuitable for many industries). It's not really really about "what would clients have done otherwise". It's a matter of giving money back. If you pay me to write a program, and it only does half of what I promise, wouldn't you want [part of] your money back?

SkyPuncher 6y ago

> It was stability - it just worked and at the same time competitors didn't. This is absolutely huge. We've tried Teams (and I have previously used Webex and Hangouts). It seems like there is _always_ one person that struggles with other video services. Can't join, video/audio issues, CPU usage, latency, etc. Painful when 10%+ of a meeting is consumed by getting one last, key person trying to fix their issues.