8 ms·

Meet, to me, is the perfect balance of functionality and simplicity (as an end user). And features like this only make that more apparent. Zoom and Teams alway

• stavros 2y ago
  Meet frustrates me immensely because I can't just fullscreen someone sharing an HD screen onto my HD screen and get 1:1 pixels with an overlay of faces (like Zoom does). Instead, I have to either not be able to read small text, or awkwardly pan in the recently-added "zoom" view.
  • CitrusFruits 2y ago
    Yeah I feel like with a couple UI tweaks or options Meet would be the best by far. It's just so much more convenient and accessible than the others.
    • stavros 2y ago
      I definitely agree, needs no installation, things just work, quality is good, has nice features like push-to-talk, etc. It's great, there are just some tiny UX niggles that could be solved very easily but haven't been, yet.
      • matsemann 2y ago
        It's horrible slow on some computers/browser combos, which is my main gripe with it. Video quality is also much worse, but doesn't matter too much to me. And as with all Google stuff the UX is kinda weird and non-intuitive. What does all the different join options do? When should I use what? Why must all presentations be so small if I also want to see the presenter? Zoom is much better here.
        • mlrtime 2y ago
          We are a meet company and I often have calls with vendors. I very much dislike when they send zoom links. It takes so much messing around with to actually get to the call, with meet it is one click every time. Install the fat client, no thank you. Connect computer to audio? Why is that even a question? Zoom is living in the 2000s.
    • anon84873628 2y ago
      Just in case any Meet engineers are reading... It needs to let me put my self-view right under the webcam lens, so I can stare at myself and still be looking at the camera.
      • sdenton4 2y ago
        I always turn off self view because it is incredibly distracting.
      • floam 2y ago
        FaceTime deals with this by changing your eyeballs realtime
  • blumomo 2y ago
    You get near full screen watching a shared screen with Meets with these steps: 1. change Meets call layout to one video (presentation) only, disabling participant watching 2. press F11 to make browser go full screen 3. press Ctrl+Minus multiple times to decrease UI elements which makes the shared video near full screen
    • stavros 2y ago
      I'll try that, thanks!
    • xiwenc 2y ago
      That’s a workaround at best I also think this is perhaps the top issue i have with Meets. The current UX does not consider the fact people share screen most of the time. having ability to go full screen to get 1 to 1 scale with some essential floating menus. Even more recent years when remote teams are the new normal.
  • pimlottc 2y ago
    It is pretty frustrated how limited the layout options are. The best workaround is to open a second Meet window and join the meeting in "companion mode" [0]. Then you can at least position the windows how you like, with each focusing on a different thing. 0: https://support.google.com/meet/answer/11295507?hl=en https://support.google.com/meet/answer/11295507?hl=en
  • thrdbndndn 2y ago
    I don't know how to do it with Teams either.
  • shiandow 2y ago
    Using Firefox you can use the PIP mode to put the presentation wherever you want at any size.
    • stavros 2y ago
      Oh, really? I didn't realize I could detach the presentation element, thanks!
      • LiquidFlux 2y ago
        I'm not a Meet user but Google have a PIP extension of their own for Chrome that might also work for the same purposes. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/picture-in-picture-extens/hkgfoiooedgoejojocmhlaklaeopbecg https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/picture-in-picture-...
  • wazoox 2y ago
    In Firefox, click on the small "Picture in picture" button, then click on the "full-screen" corner button to make any of the videos full-screen. OK you don't have the faces overlay, but you'll have a nice full-screen version of the presentation.
• cloudwalking 2y ago
  Agree, I find Meet is the simplest and works the best. I really appreciate the audio filtering -- don't ever hear colleague's typing or dogs barking or lawn mowing.
• novok 2y ago
  Meet's GUI eats screen space and reduces the size of video feeds as a result with not being able to do anything about it. It took years for it to let you choose audio and video sources from the button itself like zoom has had forever and forced you to go into the setting panels and tap on 4 screens. Same with video feed layouts. I really dislike meet compared to zoom. Zoom also transmits much higher quality video and screen share feeds than meet does. This new feature is very impressive although, most echo cancellation is "mute everyone except one speaker" which leads to walkie-talkie style half-duplex talking, which really hurts normal communication flows. I wonder how they do it here.
• r00fus 2y ago
  Meet’s default audio noise cancellation is pathetic compared to Zoom. Initial Teams was also poor but has improved. My daughter’s school uses Zoom for her IEP where at least one attendee is remote that day. Not a fun experience.
• nradov 2y ago
  This isn't an area where simplicity wins. Zoom is targeted more towards professional use whereas Meet is more for casual or social use. It doesn't really support multiple displays, like I can't watch screen sharing on one display while moving the chat and video windows off to another display. Scaling options for screen sharing are inadequate and it doesn't even support real full screen display. Meet lacks advanced audio options that make it unusable for things like music lessons. Zoom has more third party integrations available.
  • pquki4 2y ago
    I think because Meet is fully browser based, some of the features like sharing audio with screen are only available via chrome or chromium based browsers -- definitely not on Firefox in my own testing. I don't know the exact reason for that, but it's kind of sad.
    • ChuckMcM 2y ago
      Which is why I don't use Meet.
      • kccqzy 2y ago
        That's exactly the reason I use Meet. I don't want native code execution; I want sandboxed JavaScript code execution.
        • ChuckMcM 2y ago
          That's fair. Everyone comes to these sorts of positions with a stack of values[1]. How that stack is ordered often determines one's choices. One of the interesting things for me from a technological perspective is whether or not we're converging on what the ideal set of features for a "video phone" would be. If there was a broad enough consensus on the core feature set I would hope an 'appliance' version would be available which would eliminate needing to use a general purpose processor (and all the risks that entails) for this sort of meeting. [1] From your response I infer that you value "no native code" and "sandboxed javascript" highly which guides you to the choice to use Meet, vs someone who might stack "User Experience" more highly than those two and end up at a different choice.
• contrarian1234 2y ago
  Meet requires a Google account to attend a video call while Zoom does not. So if your hosting a meeting with strangers, using Meet is not user friendly. At least personally I refuse to make a Google account bc it requires giving Google my phone number... But I know that's a bit of technoludditism in the current zeitgeist
  • whstl 2y ago
    Is this new? I have definitely joined Meets calls from my personal laptop and I don't have a personal Google account. This includes my last job interview, and, well, I got the job. Perhaps it's meeting specific, or organization specific?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • contrarian1234 2y ago
      I read that if you have a business account then this limitation doesn't exist - but I've never had anyone send me a link that worked without a login
      • whstl 2y ago
        Ah, I can see how Google would do it like this.
  • loosescrews 2y ago
    This is only true for meetings created with free gmail accounts. If use Google Workspace this limitation does not apply.
    • behnamoh 2y ago
      That's a shady tactic right there.
      • 2y ago
• Szpadel 2y ago
  I used many video conferencing systems over the years and I meet is my favourite usually there is need to some third party extension/application that have usually does not support Linux or if Linux is supported, they explicitly ban Wayland/pipewire (I'm looking at you slack) but for need they stick to web standards therefore this works in any web browser you might have also it tends to not consume every CPU cycle you have (slack again) so you can do so something while you eg screen sharing
• buro9 2y ago
  If Meet did "autorecord" combined with "autoshare recording with recipients" (specifically including Google Group recipients)... then it would be perfect. As it is, we're gradually shifting more things to Zoom where that's either part basic functionality, or part easy to automate as things like Zapier are well integrated into the API. We only use Meet for team meetings now, and we did use Gong.io to solve the above... but Gong is pretty expensive just to allow those who were out that week to catch up on a recording when they're back and if they care to.
  • samcheng 2y ago
    Hmm. We natively record and transcribe many meetings via Meet. Maybe it’s a function of the plan we’re on? I wouldn’t want “autorecord” though - it’s better for culture and rapport to not feel like every conversation is “on the record.”
    • buro9 2y ago
      Well I'd hope that's a property of a specific meeting and not all meetings, but team weeklies where those not present want to catch up, and the recording is only going to those regular attendees (members of a specific Google Group)... sure, that's a thing we would like to have.
      • nicd 2y ago
        Not sure what Gong's pricing is, but we evaluated a few different notetakers and settled on https://fireflies.ai/ https://fireflies.ai/. $18 / month gets a recording and summary sent out to all invitees to the calendar invite, uploaded into Hubspot, etc. Very valuable for our sales calls.
    • PeterStuer 2y ago
      You might be surprised finding out that nearly all meetings are recorded by one or more participants for transcription, automatic notes, summaries and action points.
  • adobrawy 2y ago
• alkonaut 2y ago
  It very rarely matters which product is "better" in any objective sense. If you are team that work with Teams, your meetings will be on teams. Teams could be much worse than Zoom or Meet, you wouldn't move your group from Teams for one meeting anyway.
  • sixothree 2y ago
    We work with a lot of external customers. Teams, GotoMeeting, GotoWebinar, Skype, Google Meet, Zoom. And honestly, they all suck. Getting logged in is always a problem. Setting my name permanently is literally always a problem (I have zero idea why). Viewing someone elses screen always stinks because the scaling is just not good. On top of that you can't compare Teams to Google Meet because literally every organization has theirs configured differently. For some organizations, I can use my phone for audio. For others I can only use my laptop. So it's never an Apples to Apples comparison. Sometimes you have access to chat history; other times if you reconnect you lose chat history. The differences inside a product go on and on.
    • Trekkie101-B 2y ago
      I used to use a lot of random services while at work, and then I found Jitsi (browser based) and honestly I’m astounded it hasn’t taken over because of its simplicity or ability to just handle anything thrown at it.
  • The_Colonel 2y ago
    In a big corp, when organising a meeting, we can choose between google meet, webex, slack (huddle) and zoom. I don't know why, but it is what it is.
• mulderc 2y ago
  I have always had way more issues with meet than zoom. Guessing it is something about browser compatibility but participants regularly have issues with mics and cameras that I don’t see with zoom.
• bongodongobob 2y ago
  As an "IT admin", it's not that I need convincing. It's that the rest of Googles "office" products are absolute amateur hour and support is non-existent.
  • jamesrr39 2y ago
    > the rest of Googles "office" products are absolute amateur hour Not quite sure about this. Gmail (both personal and company accounts) is IMO a great email client with loads of handy features, and I always felt Google Docs/Sheets/Slides/Drawings were well put together. Are they the best in class? I guess it depends what you are looking for. Could Drive be faster? Yes, that would be nice. But "amateur hour" sounds like we are simply using different products.
    • fbdab103 2y ago
      Google Slides is Actually Hilarious HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30227588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30227588 Article: https://medium.com/@laurajavier/google-slides-is-actually-hilarious-83c1ced857ee https://medium.com/@laurajavier/google-slides-is-actually-hi...
  • rayval 2y ago
    I have used Microsoft Office for 20 years and Google Docs/Workspace for 15 years. I much prefer the Google suite over the Microsoft one. I prioritize quality of user experience, ease of use, performance, platform portability, freedom from constant intrusive software updates, and not messing with the built-in Emacs key bindings built into every Mac (Various MS Office programs inconsistently disable those key bindings). YMMV, esp with UI and UX, but for me there's no contest. Regarding support, that is not an issue I have never needed it for Google, but occasionally have needed for MS Office. So I can see why if you are using Office you would value that.
  • mlrtime 2y ago
    Has MS figured out searching emails yet? After 25+ years of outlook they never seem to figure out email search.
• dgellow 2y ago
  My Meet calls always end up pixelated, where Zoom looks perfect. That’s basically the only thing I care about after the audio quality, I often cannot read someone’s screen when shared via Meet. Zoom also feels lower latency but I never checked if that’s the case. Note sure if that’s because I’m not in the US.
  • makeitdouble 2y ago
    You might be hitting QOS limitations where traffic from Google is bundled with YouTube et al and served at a lower priority ? In my experience Zoom is always slightly better, but at a nitpicking level. I use meet day in day out, and fallback to whatever we have in hand if it's unworkable (pixelation would hit that line), and never saw zoom or Skype or discord being significantly better at these times.
    • iruoy 2y ago
      That would be against net neutrality laws here in The Netherlands, but we also get low bitrates when screensharing. But Google Meet is pretty good otherwise. Zoom is good too. All others I have used have been quite annoying to use.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• moralestapia 2y ago
  Agree that Meet is the superior experience. Unfortunately, it's only a matter of time until one their VPs decides to "improve it" with the usual imbecile ideas they come up with. >Google Meet now scans all your files so they can get shared automatically with all members on the meeting when it is appropriate to enrich the conversation. You cannot opt-out this feature.
• varispeed 2y ago
  The organisation I worked at used Meet until someone from Microsoft convinced them to use Teams. Such a nightmare. Quality of meetings went downhill and employees were penalised for secretly using Meet for ad hoc meetings.
  • paulryanrogers 2y ago
    > employees were penalised for secretly using Meet for ad hoc meetings. Why would someone ever be secretly punished?
    • PeterStuer 2y ago
      Microsoft convinced the CIO that they can't meet regulatory requirements unless everything is recorded and under central compliance records management.
    • kortilla 2y ago
      Not secretly punished. Punished for secretly using a non-compliant tool. This is very common anywhere that handles sensitive info.
  • sbrother 2y ago
    I think we are technically supposed to use Zoom at my employer, but almost everyone (at least in eng) just uses Meet instead. The UX is so much better, and it's rarer that something isn't working with someone's setup. Also I swear the audio latency is worse with Zoom -- I find myself accidentally interrupting people more often.
    • mulderc 2y ago
      I have never received a meet invite from someone that isn’t required to use it by their organization.
• Unfrozen0688 2y ago
  [dead]
• make3 2y ago
  the free version has pretty low bitrate as far as I can tell
• pants2 2y ago
  With Meet, time from opening the meeting link to joining the meeting is often <1 sec, whereas others (especially Teams) have painfully slow loading screens.
  • deathanatos 2y ago
    Meet is nowhere near "<1 sec" for me, but my employer doesn't provide the best hardware, neither. It takes several seconds for the camera to initialize. Team's load time is atrocious, though, by comparison.
    • maccard 2y ago
      I’m definitely closer to a second. It takes longer to load my calendar for the link than it does to load meet.
• dyauspitr 2y ago
  Meet is perfect, I’ve always loved it. Slick and not bulky. Works beautifully in the browser. Simple features that work seamlessly. The ability to share single chrome tabs is a godsend. Zoom has always felt like a clunky product to me.
• nicoster 2y ago
  What aspects of Zoom and Teams are frustrating for you?