[HN Gopher] Stop using Zoom, Hamburg's data protection agency wa... ___________________________________________________________________ Stop using Zoom, Hamburg's data protection agency warns state government Author : jrepinc Score : 426 points Date : 2021-08-17 14:14 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (techcrunch.com) (TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com) | cookiengineer wrote: | For people from the EU that hate techcrunch due to its cookie | banner spam fatigue - here's the source: | | https://datenschutz-hamburg.de/pressemitteilungen/2021/08/20... | | (Note that DPA means Deutsche Presse Agentur in German, so we | don't use that term over here) | swiley wrote: | Wait, governments are still using zoom? WTF? | rblatz wrote: | I don't know what rock you are living under but everyone uses | Zoom. Even Cisco sales reps use it for sales meetings and they | own WebEx. | baal80spam wrote: | > everyone uses Zoom | | Well, my org uses Teams and I don't know anyone who uses Zoom | professionally. | breakfastduck wrote: | Well that must mean nobody uses it then. Huh. | el-salvador wrote: | Teams comes from free with Office 365. | | I think last year someone from the accounting department | suggested cancelling Zoom because we had meetings already | included in Teams. | | It caused quite a commotion from the Zoom users a few | minutes after we learnt about it. The plan was promptly | cancelled. | brewdad wrote: | My son's university has been holding tons of virtual | sessions for incoming first-year students and their | parents. Every one has been on Zoom. | | In my experience, Zoom is the standard when you are dealing | with the public at large. Teams/Hangouts/WebEx, etc are the | go to options when dealing with an internal organization | where all of the users are "known" ahead of time. | csydas wrote: | For a time in 2020, Zoom for whatever reason had a | significant boom of popularity (I suppose they had some | freemium option for group calls? I really don't know). | | As a result, a lot of companies bought licenses because | Zoom was the cool tech at the time. My company did this, | despite there being an official mandate that all official | communication/calls must go through Teams the year prior+. | | I think the persistence of Zoom is just whatever the tech | equivalent of a hangover is. Everyone binged on Zoom in | 2020, and now that we're far more comfortable with work | from home and have more stable setups, a lot of places are | stuck with Zoom licenses. Embarrassingly, our company's | periodic all-hand-calls still are on Zoom when every other | operation is done on Teams. I think our brand team also | decided to host a few presentations on Zoom when we | presented in the US for the sole reason of "well, it's | cool." | | + I have no love for Teams to be clear, it's awful | software. I do understand IT's mandate though, since the | entire point of the mandate was to get people to stop | installing random stuff on their work computers, which | turned out to be a great idea when it comes to Zoom. | ubermonkey wrote: | I have a couple of (honestly not very tech savvy) clients | who adopted Zoom at the beginning of the COVID era, and who | are absolutely swallowing whatever lies Zoom is telling | about security and encryption and whatnot. | | Zoom has the absolutely BALLS to sell a product called | "ZoomGov" they say is more secure or whatever, but who | wants to bet it's the same code running on different | servers? They're also claiming HIPAA compliance, which I'm | also certain is a complete lie. | | They don't care. They'll say literally anything, and pay | whatever fines happen if they get caught. | el-salvador wrote: | Sounds famliar! I remember attempting to do a meeting with a | company that resellls Webex. The meeting was not Webex | related but related to another product they sell. We ended up | switching to Zoom because Webex wasn't working. | metalliqaz wrote: | Not surprised. Among the various solutions discussed in this | thread, WebEx is the worst. Hangouts, Zoom, and Teams are way | ahead. | whoomp12342 wrote: | Maybe I am missing the point but what is the problem here? is | there some major security flaw in zoom? | mishafb wrote: | Zoom is not end to end encrypted at all, and they can see | every video stream. Also their clients had vulnerabilities in | the past. | djrogers wrote: | For one thing, zoom does have E2EE | (https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-enable-zoom- | encryption/) and secondly - if we're talking about public | meetings (like city council meetings) why would it matter? | swiley wrote: | E2EE means just about nothing without open source | clients. | howaboutnope wrote: | Well, for one, this happened: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25474372 | dredmorbius wrote: | "This" being "Zoom executive charged with disrupting | meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square". | shakna wrote: | Zoom has had several major security flaws [0]. (Arbitrary | execution, installers with malware in them, and so on.) | | Executives charged with coordinating attacks against citizens | outside China, on behalf of the PRC. [1] | | They recently settled a class action for lying about having | E2E encryption. [2] | | [0] https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability- | list.php?vendor_id=... | | [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/china-based-executive-us- | tele... | | [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58050391 | cupcake-unicorn wrote: | Yup, just had some meetings with my city's local government as | well as local nonprofits over Zoom. Concerning from a security | standpoint. | nsizx wrote: | What should they use instead, some half assed open source | solution subcontracted to the usual cronies of the consulting | business? | swiley wrote: | Anything else, even something proprietary. | saeergsergesrg wrote: | Yes, there is version of zoom specifically for government. | https://www.zoomgov.com/ | wintermutestwin wrote: | Zoom is used in some courts: | | https://www.npr.org/2020/06/19/880859109/zoom-call-eviction-... | caseydm wrote: | Anybody else prefer Google meet over zoom lately? I feel like | it's a cleaner layout. | kevincox wrote: | Also depending on the type of calls you have Google Meet can be | a lot more usable. | | Zoom seems to come from the Seminar/Presentation mindset. By | default no one can join until the host does, only the host can | share their screen and no one except the host can mute other | participants. Most of the default ACLs can be relaxed if the | organizer changes their default meeting settings but most | people won't. | | Google Meet seems to assume some level of trust between the | participants which matches my use case much more. So by default | anyone can share their screen when they need too and if someone | forgets to mute themselves when they take a call someone else | can help them out (I have seen a Zoom meeting that had to be | abandoned because someone took a call thinking they were on | mute.) | | I'm not saying that the Zoom defaults are "wrong". In fact they | are the safer defaults. But for my most common use case of a | meeting between people in the same company the Meet defaults | work much better. (Although it is nice when a meeting gets | "canceled" because the organizer is out sick and no one can | join /s) | gtsteve wrote: | I'll give it another shot, but every time I do I'm not | impressed. | | I'd love to use Google Meet and save some money but the audio | and video quality looks like a cheap trick compared to Zoom. My | users complain endlessly about this. We discovered Zoom a few | years back because we were desperate to get away from Hangouts. | | I expect their client does a lot of work around clearing up | audio and similar whereas you'd need to do that on the server- | side (and accept the lag) for Google Meet unless you can use | WebAsm to clean up the audio stream possibly. I don't know if | developers have that access. | | I guess Google could solve this but it would require some | considerable resources. I think this is one of those situations | where video calls are a hobby for Google but they're the entire | business for Zoom. | aendruk wrote: | The actual announcement: | | - de https://datenschutz- | hamburg.de/pressemitteilungen/2021/08/20... | | - en (auto) | https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3... | bjourne wrote: | Zoom is an incredibly creepy company. I completely loathe that my | company forces us to use it. | AdmiralAsshat wrote: | Offer a comparable alternative, then. I spend half my day on | meetings either internally or with clients, and every time I have | to jump on a client meeting with Microsoft Teams/Google | Hangouts/WebEx/GotoMeeting because their company bans Zoom, it's | a recipe for a fruitless meeting. Someone will fumble the sharing | controls; screens will take forever to present; at least one | person's microphone will become inaudible, static-y, or suffer | from "robot voice slow-down" lag. | | To say nothing of the clusterf*ck that happens when two company- | specific instances of Microsoft Teams try to communicate with | each other and I'm left with a bunch of orphaned chatrooms with | outside personnel after the meeting concludes. | wsinks wrote: | Dang, Webex is still that bad for you? Is it because you're | using company's instances where it's more locked down and | they're on older code? | | I know it's not perfect, but it's pretty reliable for me (and | full disclosure, I work for a different subsidiary of Cisco - | but I also try to be pretty critical of it since I'm close to | it) | | I don't use Zoom a ton, but I've experienced what feels like a | similar amount of sluggishness and AV issues as I have on | Webex. At this point I know I'm a bit too close to have a | useful anecdote, I'm just surprised that Webex is still put in | the same group as Teams / Hangouts / GTM. | | Again, not trying to sway you, just understand a bit better. | oritron wrote: | I found Webex to be quite a lot worse than Zoom in my limited | experience. I attended a few IEEE presentations hosted on the | platform. Audio didn't connect smoothly and needed a few | restarts. The talk was constantly interrupted by a chiming | noise whenever a person joined or left the meeting. I | remember finding a configuration setting for this but the | hosts didn't see my message (another bad feature), as this | was a meeting-wide setting rather than a client one. Even if | it were configurable per-user, that chime turned on is an | unexpected and intrusive default setting. | | Beyond that, I couldn't see the presented content in full- | screen. There was a lot of junk in the form of perpetual UI | elements for the "fullscreen mode". | | These seemed like pretty fundamental misses for the platform | to make. | echlebek wrote: | I attended a webex earlier this year and I found the | experience was far better than Zoom. The audio and video | quality was better, and also the presentation controls were | much more sophisticated. | bwship wrote: | I never have issues with Hangouts. I think Zoom is a slightly | better experience, but just making a Calendar invite in Google | Calendar, and it automatically having the Hangout meeting is | pretty nice. | | [Edit] Google Meet | blululu wrote: | As someone who runs Zoom via the browser (they do deploy a dark | pattern to discourage this behavior but there is no good reason | to trust them) I find that Hangouts and Teams are both solid | alternatives in terms of AV quality. Would be happy to see some | actual data on this claim. | | People prefer the interface they are used to. I personally find | Zoom to be really frustrating from an interface angle but that | is probably just familiarity. Of course Zoom could have avoided | such issues had they been more conscious of ethics. | danielrhodes wrote: | Perhaps I am jaded, but as of yet I have never used a | browser-based video chat that worked well. Invariably | connection issues arise which I have only rarely experienced | with Zoom. My best explanation is that a native app has more | to work with in terms of codecs and connection management | than a browser can offer. | | So to this end, that "dark" pattern is ultimately to a user's | benefit and they are truly better off if they use the native | app. If Zoom did not do this, they would pay the cost in | terms of support and perceptions that the service is not | reliable, in much the same way that Hangouts is unusable. | | Having said that, you should be able to acknowledge that you | do want to use the browser and don't want to see the pattern | again. | blululu wrote: | This dark pattern may benefit some users, however there is | a trade-off between video quality and data security. | Different users have different preferences/needs between | these two aspects of a video call service. Tricking people | into selecting one option is rarely done out of concern for | the interests of the end user. I would personally be much | more convinced that I am benefiting from installing an app | that has a history of data security issues if they gave a | clear and up front explanation of why this benefits me. | | FWIW, my work uses Google Meet running through Chrome and | it gets the job done for remote collaboration. I would | actually be curious to see some figures on the difference | in performance between Browser and Desktop. I imagine that | you can do a few tricks for compression and buffering on | with a native app that would not be possible on a browser, | but I haven't seen a big difference in terms of my ability | to have a meeting. | cupcake-unicorn wrote: | That dark pattern drives me crazy. I use Zoom on Linux and | prefer to use it in browser and I still almost always miss | the link after having done it several times. | kevincox wrote: | If you use Firefox I recommend | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/zoom- | redirect... | lisper wrote: | That must be a very dark pattern. I didn't even know it was | possible to run Zoom in a browser, and even now that I know | I can't figure out how to do it. What's the secret? | scrollaway wrote: | You need to click download zoom on the meeting launch and | give it a second, it will show a "having trouble?" | message and let you open in a browser. | lisper wrote: | Wow, that is evil. Thanks! | throwaway192874 wrote: | The web UI is severely limited compared to the desktop | client which is why I suspect they do this (even though I | disagree with it). | | I've had some very confusing meetings because I worked at | a company that required us to use web, but the presenter | wasn't and what she was seeing didn't match us which led | to some confusing scenarios. Things like the grid view | weren't there last I used it and some of the more | advanced presenter features just don't do anything for | web iirc | el-salvador wrote: | It can be enabled/disabled by your company's Zoom | administrator. | sombremesa wrote: | Just replace the /j/ in the URL of the page with /wc/join/, | and you should be in the zoom web client. | | You can even prepare your links this way so you're there to | begin with. | ghaff wrote: | I don't really get the religion around the video platforms. I | use three (Zoom, Google Meet, and Bluejeans) on a regular | basis and they all seem simultaneously decent enough and | imperfect on my network on a given day. Teams is fine too but | I rarely use it. | el-salvador wrote: | From my experience in Latin America, Zoom tolerates network | problems better. I've connected from or have had attendants | using DSL, Cable, 3G, 4G (Not LTE) and call in phone audio. | mttddd wrote: | yep I think alternatives have improved but pre covid i | traveled all over the world for work and the big thing | was Zoom worked the best on iffy connections and also | played best with multiple companies IT systems | NullPrefix wrote: | Browser zoom drops my audio after several minutes making me | disable and reenable audio to get a few more minutes of | audio. Annoying when it happens mid sentence, but that's a | price you have to pay for using Zoom. | sofixa wrote: | > As someone who runs Zoom via the browser (they do deploy a | dark pattern to discourage this behavior but there is no good | reason to trust them) I find that Hangouts and Teams are both | solid alternatives in terms of AV quality. Would be happy to | see some actual data on this claim | | Some anecdata, recently i had to switch from Teams to Zoom, | with the same person, and the audio quality was drastically | better on Zoom for both of us. | tracker1 wrote: | Hangouts is all but dead, and Chat/Meet suck by comparison... | at one point, I loved Hangouts, one comms app to rule them | all, SMS, chat, video conf, messaging, even google voice... | then it all fell apart. | | Half the time, I can't join a meet with video, or the video | works in the "test" window, but as soon as you join it's | broken. | | I'm mostly okay with Teems though. | jeppester wrote: | I've seen this argument used many times against GDPR | regulations. | | Who are obligated to provide an alternative? And why? | | It's not like the police is obligated to give drug abusers | something in return for the drugs that they are confiscating. | choeger wrote: | Do you ask for a comparable alternative when a road gets closed | or slowed down? Or when a particular, well working, herbicide | gets banned? Or when carrying guns openly gets banned? Did you | ask for a comparable alternative to leaded fuel? | sharken wrote: | Have not experienced this myself, but it could be due to poor | network connectivity. | | What i find annoying about Teams, is the ability to use 100% | CPU and 90% of the integrated graphics on a laptop. | | Thankfully disabling GPU hardware acceleration have helped | quite a lot. | duxup wrote: | >Offer a comparable alternative, then. | | Maybe I am not doing a lot of meetings compared to others but I | really haven't had more or less problems with Teams, Google | products, or GoToMeeting (haven't used webex in a long time) | ... compared to Zoom. | | It's all a wash for me among those experience wise. | | I constantly have various orgs tell me all about how they only | use X video conferencing app because of Y experience. Most of | those stories conflict ;) | ghaff wrote: | I'm in meetings typically 2+ hours a day. I'm on a decent but | not great Internet connection. My experience is they all | mostly work but none are guaranteed to have a video/audio | glitch free call. | duxup wrote: | Same. I think a lot of people's experience with them is | just happenstance. | [deleted] | badLiveware wrote: | I believe that the government in Hamburg and the Bundeswehr are | implementing(or has already) element and matrix. | | https://element.io/pro/federation-collaboration | hef19898 wrote: | The latter organisation is not necessarily a benchmark in IT, | or organisation in general. | iso1210 wrote: | Webex is so shockingly bad. Zoom, Teams, Slack, all seem to | work fairly well, all have clients (and can run in the browser) | | Webex - which I have to use as part of a university course I'm | doing on the side - _requires_ you to run it in a browser on my | OS, it has really awful options (like allowing the presenter to | unmute people), half the claimed features just aren 't | available (virtual whiteboard, no major loss as everyone uses a | shared google doc instead), and if you disconnect for some | reason (like sound stops working which happens fairly | frequently) you are kicked out of a group and you can't get | back in. | saiya-jin wrote: | Must be your specific webex/connection settings/version then, | we have it in our massive banking corps (90k+employees | worldwide) and none of the things you describe are an issue. | We have adopted it some 7 years ago. | | You don't need to run it in browser at all, there are desktop | (and phone) clients for every major OS out there. This shows | that you are really not familiar with it. | | Now it is still a crappy system, but for different reasons | than you describe. And other solutions have their own | problems, as indicated by article and elsewhere. | hobofan wrote: | The 1000 slightly different versions of Webex that are all | bundeled under the same brand are its biggest drawback. | | My university uses it as well, and the normal latest | version of Webex is on par with Zoom. However for some | courses the lecutrers use e.g. Webex Training which is | barely usable garbage (but is the only version that has | built-in quiz features). | silurian wrote: | > there are desktop (and phone) clients for every major OS | out there. This shows that you are really not familiar with | | Now you sound as if you are not familiar with it. Looks | like Webex added Linux(Deb & RHEL) on May 28, 2021. Before | that, you had to use their legacy java applcation which | also necessitated you to *manually* figure out, then hunt | down & install the missing dependencies. And it was still | shit. | azalemeth wrote: | I very much agree with this. | | Zoom may be terrible from a security point of view; I dislike | the fact that I may well have installed spyware on my machines; | and I have _absolutely no idea_ why in the nine hells the | Android version _complains that my phone is rooted_ (it should | exist in a chroot!) but --- despite all of that --- _it works_. | | Teams, in particular comparison, is like DIY dentistry with | kitchen implements as surgical tools. It lags; it doesn't have | a native client on any devices and turns them all into heaters; | its codecs are nowhere near as good, and it can't display as | many people on screen at one point in time -- and there's no | private chat. I understand on one level why most organisations | seem to want to force their staff to use Teams - it's "free" | (if you already pay the microsoft tax) and comes with the | corporation (+-NSA) being the spying overlord, rather than | "E2EE" (+China). However, I _completely_ also understand why | most users prefer Zoom. Frankly, I do too! | tehnub wrote: | When my company first started using Zoom, people were fumbling | the controls constantly. In fact, people still do ("Can you see | my screen?"), and no one knows what "Optimize for video clip" | even means. | | I don't think those other platforms are inherently worse, we're | just slightly more familiar with Zoom. | ubermonkey wrote: | I've been a heavy user of GoToMeeting for over a decade. It | works very, very well for us, and our use case is entirely | multi-org meetings. | | If someone has shitty home internet (a COVID-era problem), then | they should probably dial in separately and not use the meeting | audio, but that's going to hurt you no matter what meeting tool | you use. | croes wrote: | It's not their job to name alternatives, it's their job if a | tool complies to the laws. | geofft wrote: | Technically yes, but practically, if someone can't get their | job done without breaking rules, they're going to break the | rules. If your goal is _actual compliance_ with rules, giving | people a way to comply is much more effective. | croes wrote: | Tell that the software companies. You can't demand to | change the maw just because software companies want to | illegaly collect data from their users. Why are people | always complaining about data protection officers but not | the shitty software companies. They have the tracking and | the bugs which endanger their users and most of the time | they won't even get punished. | [deleted] | dcow wrote: | Tandem is still new and has bugs but it's never been a meeting | killer. It doesn't really have a guest access feature yet, | though (at least to my knowledge). | fukmbas wrote: | Teams is superior to Zoom... I don't understand why anyone uses | Zoom, it's trash and compromised | reedlaw wrote: | Jitsi Meet (https://meet.jit.si/) | zelphirkalt wrote: | Easy to self-host and probably less expensive to host than | all the MS Office licenses used for MS Teams or paid Zoom | licenses. I set up Jitsi Meet months ago and all I ever had | to do was to add user accounts using prosody on the server | (which should be improved imo). I've not needed to touch | anything since first setup, except for user accounts. It just | works. What's more is, that some solutions like MS Teams | still is not able to properly work on all browsers. While | Discord has solved this problem for ages and Jitsi Meet | simply works in all modern browsers. I have a hunch, that | with MS Teams there is active unwillingness to make it work | properly. How else can this be explained? | da_chicken wrote: | > _I have a hunch, that with MS Teams there is active | unwillingness to make it work properly. How else can this | be explained?_ | | As the saying goes, never attribute to malice that which | can adequately be explained by stupidity. | fartcannon wrote: | There's an update to that saying: | | Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be | explained by stupidity, unless it's Microsoft. Then it's | definitely malice. | rad_gruchalski wrote: | Used it once, host shared the screen, never seen anything | what they have shared. | ryukafalz wrote: | Yup. We use this for every meeting at my local hackerspace | and it's been great. | | Bonus: it tells you when connectivity issues are on your end | or someone else's end, everyone's network stats are visible. | KronisLV wrote: | > Offer a comparable alternative, then | | Here's a few: - https://meet.jit.si/ which you | can also self host https://github.com/jitsi - | https://bigbluebutton.org/ which you can also self host | https://github.com/bigbluebutton | | I've found that they're especially useful, when integrated with | Rocket.Chat https://rocket.chat/ which you can also self host | https://github.com/RocketChat | | That way you have an experience that's a lot like Slack/Teams, | with pretty good support for chat, reactions, file uploads, | discussions, making quotes etc., while also being able to start | video/audio calls with the press of a single button. | | Of course, if that's too many platforms, Rocket.Chat also | supports WebRTC, albeit the UX was a bit less stellar when i | last tried it. | | Alternatively, there is also Nextcloud Talk, which can | integrate with your instance of Nextcloud and allow for file | sharing, chatting etc., though personally i found Rocket.Chat | to be more usable: https://nextcloud.com/talk/ | | Regardless, those are some very competent options which allow | all the data to remain on your own servers. | cpncrunch wrote: | Yes, there are many self-hosted options out there. | https://github.com/meetecho/janus-gateway works well for | multi-party video with up to about 15 users in a room | assuming everyone has a reasonably reliable connection. | saurik wrote: | AdmiralAsshat's point was that all of the alternatives sucked | because they were difficult or flakey to use: they weren't | "comparable". Notably, the alternatives being mentioned as | non-comparable weren't even trying to be local: they were | remote service/ (which if you think Zoom is particularly bad, | is still an improvement) built by giant companies that have | tons of resources to have an army working on just these | tools... and they all still sucked. | | You then responded to this comment by just matter-of-factly | asserting that you had the list of missing alternatives... | but, really, you are simply hijacking the thread to point out | that alternatives exist "which allows all the data to remain | on your own servers"; but, you provide no evidence or | argument to address whether these products are actually | "comparable" (to the point where it just feels like you | didn't even understand the point being made) in a way that, | say, Google Hangouts--which is the product Google created | WebRTC for!--isn't. | ratww wrote: | I disagree that alternatives are flakey or difficult to | use. If anything it's the opposite. I use BBB daily (and | sometimes Jitsi) with a very varied group (including people | who never had a computer before) and the results are _much_ | better than with Zoom. Maybe Zoom is intuitive if you grew | up with computers and with bad software, but honestly the | quasi-requirement of installation (it 's non-trivial to use | the web version) and the dark patterns galore are hard to | navigate for non-techy people. | lrvick wrote: | I use https://meet.jit.si/ daily and can confirm it is | easier to use than Zoom or Hangouts. | | No nag screens trying to get me to install desktop clients | or trying to get me to create an account or give up | personal information. | | It just works. | saddlerustle wrote: | Like all apps that are "just" WebRTC, jitsi doesn't work | well on networks with persistently high packet loss. A VC | app needs to work reliably 99.99% of the time, not just | 99% of the time. | [deleted] | okprod wrote: | I think the OP meant options that are as "easy" as click on a | link and join a meeting. I use BBB and Mumble but there are | others I know who would never know how to set up their own | instance or even what github is. | lrvick wrote: | This is why multiple companies exist to sell you one-click | hosted instances of these without lock-in. | yorwba wrote: | Yeah, the press release https://datenschutz- | hamburg.de/pressemitteilungen/2021/08/20... mentions that | (in addition to a nameless internal videoconferencing | tool) Hamburg uses Dataport as a vendor, which seems to | imply Jitsi Meet: https://video.openws.de/ | FiReaNG3L wrote: | jitsi is exactly that, been using it for the whole pandemic | for meetings for my team of 10 ppl, never had an issue. | taf2 wrote: | I like your line reasoning... but the problem with video | conferencing isn't really technical- IMO it's all about the | User experience (UX). Zoom by far beats the competition in | this regard. It's UI could be better but compared the mess of | competitors it's far more straightforward ... just my | opinion... | ratww wrote: | I don't think Zoom "beats" anyone in UX, especially with | the dark patterns. They're just popular. I've seen | countless times hundreds of people unable to activate the | "Computer Audio" option on company-wide meetings because | it's in a secondary tab with zero-affordance. Recently they | made it very hard to find the "gallery mode" icon (you have | to hover a dark area). They also make it borderline | impossible to open it on the browser, forcing multiple | reloads or whatnot (the method it changes all the time). | Honestly Jitsi, BBB and even Teams are all better IMO. | cycomanic wrote: | One of my pet-peeves with the zoom UX is that it always | switches to full-screen mode if someone is sharing the | screen. This is particularly annoying if you are also | using the participant or chat windows (because there's | voting or chat messages etc.) and if you are switching | between different presenters (meaning it switches again | and again to full screen). Why can't it respect my | decision to not have a full-screen window?! | schmorptron wrote: | Element, too! | Akronymus wrote: | Element actually uses jitsi. | schmorptron wrote: | Oh right, they're just planning to get voice and video | working over matrix natively in the semi near future | geraneum wrote: | Other big services sometimes solve this problem by creating a | data center in EU for European customers (DataDog, 1password, | etc.). I don't know how feasible could that be in Zoom's case | technically, but if they see a threat of losing customers | because of GDPR they might dedicate such resources. | baja_blast wrote: | As someone how uses both Zoom and Google Hangouts, there is | nothing Zoom offers that Google hangouts does not provide. The | quality is the same for both, but at least Hangouts does not | install a sketchy client on my machine that constantly runs in | the background. | whoomp12342 wrote: | you can disable said client on startup... | jbluepolarbear wrote: | Google hangouts is garbage. I have never had a hangout call | that didn't freeze or have someone dropout. The audio on | hangouts is beyond bad and makes people sound completely | different than they do in person. The video quality is always | grainy on my fiber connection. Zoom doesn't have these | problems for me. | el-salvador wrote: | Same issue here. If the link is too slow screen shares | become grainy and text is hard to read. | | While Zoom usually only slows the frame rate, but not the | resolution. | remus wrote: | I find it interesting that people have such different | experiences with the same tool. I tend to have 2 or 3 | hangouts meetings a day and I can't remember the last time | there was an issue. | jbluepolarbear wrote: | How are you okay with the audio compression? It makes | everyone sound flat, monotone. It's hard to tell who's | who if people have their cameras off. | vosper wrote: | Likewise - we switched from Gotomeeting to Google Meet | (which is the same as hangouts, right?) mostly because | the experience for staff in Latin America was so much | better. | | That said, Gotomeeting is the worst of the bunch. They | haven't added a useful feature in years, the CPU usage is | terrible, their parasitic launcher is very difficult to | get rid of, ugh... I'm surprised they're still around. | rand_r wrote: | I'm sorry, but Hangouts is terrible. It sucks on every level. | The UI is so bad it's hard to believe. I wish I could sit | down with their product team to get an explanation for how | badly Hangouts is designed. Takes about 10s to see all the | problems with it compared to Zoom. | john_yaya wrote: | I used to agree with you, until I discovered that | (surprise, surprise) Hangouts works great on Chrome, not so | much on other browsers. | robrenaud wrote: | My 94 year old grandpa would constantly struggle with zoom, | to the point that we'd schedule him 15 minutes early to | avoid half the meeting being about zoom problems. Hangouts | worked well for him first try. The auto captioning also | works quite a bit better with hangouts, which is good for | people with hearing loss. | aqme28 wrote: | Can you be more specific about the UI problems? It seems | pretty equivalent to Zoom to me. | rand_r wrote: | Two words: Gallery view. | | Like what in the actual fuck. How are they unable to do a | simple grid properly? It's just rectangles. The UI is | there to copy from Zoom even. | SahAssar wrote: | I don't think having the gallery view grid less | gracefully handling non-even numbers of participants | justifies saying "The UI is so bad it's hard to believe". | BiteCode_dev wrote: | Appart from not having a linux client. | azornathogron wrote: | The client is a web browser. There are web browsers on | Linux. I use hangouts in both Chrome and Firefox, and | haven't had a problem with either of them. | _huayra_ wrote: | While hangouts is a dumpster fire, Google Meet seems to work | pretty well for those who aren't willing to jump through some | self-hosted hurdles to run their own. | yibg wrote: | Screen sharing on hangout (a year or so ago) has been | terrible for me, especially for text dense screens like code. | Pair programming on hangouts I can't even read the other | person's code a lot of the time. Also hangout quality for | video and audio drops really fast on relatively poor quality | network. I've had a few cases where the quality on hangout | was too poor so we switch over to zoom. | CrimsonRain wrote: | Hangouts has zoom-level annotation or 5k screen share where | texts are crisp? | eurasiantiger wrote: | How often do you use those features, and how useful are | they to all participants? | godot wrote: | Although I mainly use zoom for work, I've also used Google Meet | occasionally and have found the quality to be on par with Zoom. | | I notice you mentioned Google Hangouts instead of Google Meet, | I'm not sure if they are the same now (too hard to keep track | of these) but a brief google search seems to suggest they are | not the same. If so, my past experience with Google Hangouts | with friends would suggest it is indeed terrible. If so, you | could give Google Meet a try. | e40 wrote: | Yeah, it's amazing to me the hate people have for Zoom. | | I feel about Zoom like Garp felt about the plane that hit the | house he was looking at buying. When the real estate agent said | he wouldn't want to buy it now, he said _The odds of another | plane hitting this house are astronomical!_ and bought the | house. I think it 's unlikely Zoom will jeopardize their | leadership by not taking security and privacy seriously. | Rd6n6 wrote: | I use whereby and it's always been without issue. They used to | have a very good privacy policy too, but since they updated it | I can't make sense out of it | el-salvador wrote: | I have to do many online meetings, with attendants from | developing countries (like mine) or unstable links. From our | experience it seemsthat Zoom tolerates our unstable internet | links better. I guess it has better error correction. | | There's also the annotate feature is super useful, which is | missing in Teams and Webex. And also offers dial-in phone | numbers in more countries then the rest. | | Zoom's audio design is nicer too, compared to Webex has some | very annoying beeps that are a pain in large meetings. | | Regarding Teams, I have a computer with plenty of RAM, SSD | disks and a high end work provided smartphone. Teams is super | slow in both of them. I haven't been able to use the Exe | version for weeks now because it's too slow. There is also no | way to quote a chat using the Windows and Web version, so in | order to quote chats I have to do it from my phone. | | Every once in a while I have buggy Teams or Webex meeting, that | ends with a "Hey you know, I'll just send you a Zoom link". | comeonseriously wrote: | I hate Teams because of other issues[0], but the video and | screen sharing are really good. | | [0] It will occasionally leave artifacts on the screen if I put | my laptop to sleep and wake it up. Just an empty rectangle in | the notification area. I had to write a powershell script to | cycle teams. And that's just one of the annoyances. | IncRnd wrote: | I think Teams has every bug known to computers. Though, I've | found GotoMeeting to work extremely well, and WebEx has been | very decent but much better than Teams. | rjsw wrote: | Teams manages to reboot Macintosh M1 machines after a few | minutes in a call. | IncRnd wrote: | Given my experience as a sad participant in Teams meetings, | I'll go on a limb and say Teams is probably running an | electron shell implemented in x86 code calling a 64bit shim | layer inside an ARM hosted VM. | el-salvador wrote: | I'm not surprised. It can runs super slow on my computer | with plenty of RAM and lots of CPU. | jeffbee wrote: | Hangouts would surely have the same problem since I doubt | Google can rule out the possibility that your video streams are | being relayed through frontend servers outside the EU. The only | way you could really control it is to use the old school | approach to video conferencing: legacy standards like SIP or | h.323 with all of the usability problems that implies, or | WebRTC with your own STUN/TURN services ... and all of the | usability problems that implies. | stalfosknight wrote: | It would be nice if Teams weren't yet another Electron disaster. | foepys wrote: | And instead of improving their code so Teams is fast as VS | Code, they delegated it to the Edge team to write a new version | of Electron called WebView2. | | Teams' codebase is apparently so bad that it's not fixable and | they need to rely on others to rewrite the runtime for them. | | For good measure it also subscribes to the media keys on the | keyboard. To mute your microphone you might think, but no, to | play the dial tone twice when pressing play/pause for your | music! Very useful, thank you Microsoft. | wila wrote: | WebView2 is the MS Edge browser technology that can be | instanced as a browser control in your application. [1] | | It is not electron. | | [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/webview2/ | foepys wrote: | Since it's unreleased they might name it differently when | releasing but I don't think they will make it open source. | Microsoft will most likely use it for themselves. | ezconnect wrote: | Economic competition has now become who can control state | government. | Ansil849 wrote: | I use Zoom for the simple reason that it provides end to end | encryption and can seamlessly support large (50+) team meetings. | | Other than WebEx, which is more cost-prohibitive and has a | clunkier UI/UX to boot, I believe there are no other video | conferencing apps that can provide the service I'm looking for | (which is 1. E2EE, and 2. support for 50+ attendees). | | _Is_ there anything else that can provide this, besides Zoom or | WebEx? | fartcannon wrote: | Yes. | | https://jitsi.org/security/ | | Plus you can self-host it. So you're only limited by the | machine you host it on. | Ansil849 wrote: | I've stress tested Jitsi's E2EE (both on the official server | and on a self-hosted instance, with was a PITA to setup, by | the way) and....it does not scale. After more than 20 clients | joined, there were noticeable problems that made the meeting | impossible to conduct (audio drop outs, frozen video, | disparate lag times, etc), both on a self-hosted instance | that had more than enough bandwidth/hardware kit to handle it | (the same self-hosted setup is also used to host Zoom, which | runs perfectly), and on their main server. | | I would like to hear real-world examples of people | successfully conducting large-scale E2EE meetings over Jitsi. | What setup did you use? | intel_brain wrote: | Telegram? | Ansil849 wrote: | Telegram does not support E2EE for group chats. | | It's also not a video conferencing platform. | fsflover wrote: | > It's also not a video conferencing platform. | | Yes, it is: https://telegram.org/blog/group-video-calls. | swiley wrote: | E2EE is meaningless with a closed client downloaded by | individuals from the service provider. | Ansil849 wrote: | If the option is "not use any closed-source E2EE video | conferencing platform because of ideological purity" or | "conferencing platform which promises E2EE and has SLAs and | legal contracts backing these claims with the client", for | practical purposes the latter wins. | rrdharan wrote: | > it provides end to end encryption | | (After lying about it for years) | | https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/zoom-to-pay-85m-... | | Theranos-level of "fake it til you make it" and they actually | did make it... | rblatz wrote: | So this is different than all the other Zoom is insecure things. | This is related to Zoom sending data to a "hostile" state (the | US) which cannot guarantee GDPR compliance and there is no waiver | to allow transmission of protected data to The US. | superkuh wrote: | In addition, Zoom developement is largely based in China which | has an even less stellar record and definitely does not respect | GDPR. | d0mine wrote: | who doesn't send data to US? (google, apple, facebook?) | cannabis_sam wrote: | I feel like I live in a bizzaro world... | | First, I've been working remotely over skype, audio-only, for | over a decade. Yet in 2020 and with the emergence of zoom, it's | suddenly become an expectation that everyone is incessantly and | awkwardly staring at each other through screens for the whole | workday. | | Second, the few times I've used Zoom it's been absolutely | garbage, with video and sound dropping or just not there (this | was a university paying for Zoom's services). | | Yet I use teams everyday, and while I have plenty of complaints | about it, at least I can get the sound and (screen-sharing) video | that I actually need for my work. | 8ytecoder wrote: | I don't know - my company/team (except for one or two instances | of introductions) never expect us to turn on video. Some people | do; other don't; just do your thing. Turning on the video is | especially hard on women. From what I have heard from friends | they have to get ready and put on makeup as if they're going to | work simply because they're expected to be on zoom video all | day long. | lrvick wrote: | I recommend almost anything else at all other than Zoom. | | As a security researcher that has reported a number of issues to | Zoom, I can say without reservation they are one of the most | security negligent companies I ever worked with. | | It was evident after multiple calls with their team they didn't | employ anyone strong technically in their US offices and had no | idea how to translate security issues, even obvious ones like DNS | takeover, to their (I assume China based) eng teams. | | The software was designed without security as even a thought as | many researchers have demonstrated. To this day the clients | expect administrative access for no reason. I refuse to install | them and tolerate the webapp when people insist on Zoom. | | A friend and I compiled this list to consider. | | https://gist.github.com/dacruz21/dd2480f195f5b48a9ab7af8b41c... | ramimac wrote: | Disclaimer: Have worked with many smart folks who now work at | Zoom. | | I agree that Zoom has had numerous security and privacy | failings. I think it is important to color the characterization | of their security teams with a timeline however. | | Looking at that gist - the majority of the content predates the | conclusion of the "90 day security plan" [1]. The team, and | product no doubt, has changed immensely in the past year. That | doesn't wallpaper over the history here, but there is | completely different security leadership (e.g the current CISO | didn't start until late June 2020 [2]) and staffing in place at | this point that means your statements on their team likely | aren't reflective of Zoom today. | | [1] https://blog.zoom.us/ceo-report-90-days-done-whats-next- | for-... [2] https://blog.zoom.us/zoom-hires-jason-lee-as-chief- | informati... | toiletaccount wrote: | and yet i still dont trust their shitware. there's a lesson | to be learned there. | sombremesa wrote: | Zoom has fixed the UX in this business, which is the one thing | that matters most(tm), and which is why they will continue to | be successful. | | It's like a restaurant which has the absolute best food by a | mile, so they remain in business despite the cockroaches and | unfriendly waitstaff. | | Most customers don't really care about privacy and security, | they just want to pretend, and as long as they can easily | pretend they're happy. | version_five wrote: | Many of the replies to your comment have the "No wireless, | less space than a nomad" vibe" People seem to nitpick or | claim equivalence between individual features, but like you | say, Zoom was the sea change toward mass videoconferencing. | acdha wrote: | Which UX problem do you think it fixed? If I had to rate by | the ability to successfully start a call and not have | technical issues interrupt it, I'd rank Zoom, Teams, Slack, | and Google Meet roughly equivalent -- the quality isn't as | good or robust as Facetime but that's also not designed for | meetings or cross-platform. | | I'd accept Google self-selecting out of the market with their | incoherent messaging strategy but that has nothing do with UX | other than not needing to tell people to uninstall the old | apps and install the current one. | artursapek wrote: | The reason Zoom won is their meeting URLs which open their | app, combined with no registration requirement. It's just a | very viral product. | justaguy88 wrote: | > Which UX problem do you think it fixed? | | You can join a call without signing up | sombremesa wrote: | When Zoom first came onto the scene, the other technologies | you've listed had more friction than coarse grained | sandpaper. Zoom was the very first to let people join | meetings without a) signing up; and b) downloading | anything. I don't know about all the solutions you've | listed, but Google Meet for example still requires an | account whereas Zoom still does not. | | As more and more people use Zoom, the friction of using it | decreases as well, since you can more safely assume that | people have used it before and are familiar with it - if | not, they can still use it without making an account, and | without downloading anything (though this has become a bit | harder now). | | Furthermore, Zoom was also one of the first solutions to | let you simply call in with your phone (and put that option | front and center), which also does not require accounts or | any downloads. | | There are probably many other things I'm glossing over here | - UX is a holistic phenomenon after all, and requires many | small things to feel right. I'm not sure whether you're | arguing that Zoom did not have 10x better UX than anything | out there when it launched, but if you are, I can't help | but think you're being willfully ignorant. | rrdharan wrote: | Google Meet does not require an account to join a | meeting. | | https://support.google.com/meet/answer/9303069 | vitus wrote: | Um, it does...? | | Under "Personal account users": | | "Anyone who isn't signed into a Google account can't join | your meetings." | | This is a feature, not a bug: https://workspaceupdates.go | ogleblog.com/2020/07/anonymous-us... | | Although: "Note, this does not prevent users from dialing | in by phone." | ethelward wrote: | > Zoom was the very first to let people join meetings | without a) signing up; and b) downloading anything | | E.g. BigBlueButton and Jitsi were doing it for much | longer. | Krasnol wrote: | Which is irrelevant because those who knew about those | are not the significant majority which is responsible for | the success of zoom | cycomanic wrote: | So the point is not that zoom was better UX wise, but | simply had better marketing, or not? | nwienert wrote: | Both. | | Honestly - there's huge, massive room for better UX that | would really revolutionize online communication: | | - Presence indicator/avatar in your toolbar of close | contacts or team | | - Push-to-talk to send audio to anyone from toolbar with | non-disruptive indicator | | - Instant screen/mouse share from there with audio and | floating video optional | | - Just so many fluidity improvements if you do a more | minimal video window that can add/remove people without | friction | | I really wish someone would build it. | acdha wrote: | > Zoom was the very first to let people join meetings | without a) signing up; and b) downloading anything | | I find your second part interesting because for years | Zoom has tried to force you to download their client -- | you have to learn how to construct the web URL to | generate links to use it in a browser since they removed | the option from their web UI. | | > I'm not sure whether you're arguing that Zoom did not | have 10x better UX than anything out there when it | launched, but if you are, I can't help but think you're | being willfully ignorant. | | I'm not sure why you're inclined to take such an | uncharitable view but I'm coming at it from the | perspective of someone who was relatively late to using | Zoom (2020) and found it pretty similar to the | competition. I used Skype, WebEx, Teams, Hangouts/Meet, | and Chime professionally first and Facetime / Hangouts | personally prior to that and the only one I'd say is 10x | worse is Skype. | reilly3000 wrote: | It's tight integration with calendar systems and Slack | definitely help. Their browser extension makes Google | Calendar event creation have a Zoom Meeting link that is | seamless, and /zoom is irresistible. For a time they had | the best free tier on the market, and people appreciated | the 45 minute time limit that came along with it. | | FWIW the competition was terrible for a time. I've never | been on a BlueJeans call that wasn't painful, Google | Meet/Hangouts had terrible quality, GoToMeeting was | neglected post-acquisition, slack killed their meeting | product for a while, and WebEx was bloated. Join.me was my | goto for a while, but now I use Jitsi when I get to choose, | but usually end up on Zoom calls. | biztos wrote: | I think a lot of it is that everyone has heard of Zoom, and | Zoom works pretty well for calls with a lot of people, so | it became the default for group video calls. | | The "UX" in this case was "fixed" by being less crashy than | the competition for long enough to earn a reputation. | | As someone with a security background myself, I really hope | organizations use it less and less, because the competition | by now works just fine. But as a human living in the world, | I don't refuse to use Zoom, I just use it on my iPad and | assume the conversation is intercepted somewhere. | CabSauce wrote: | Really? Their UI/UX within a call is the worst of the major | video conferencing tools, IMO. | netr0ute wrote: | I think it's because we power users want more from a UI, | but to Average Joe, Zoom is great because all the simple | stuff is easy to understand. | hnlmorg wrote: | I've got to agree with the GP on this. I would argue Zoom | is one of the least simple to understand UIs. | | - It's multi-window (like WebEx). Whereas Teams and Meets | is a single window interface | | - It has a great many options and not all of them are | immediately obvious. Like how filters are hidden behind | then stop cam button | | I'm not saying I'm a fan of MS Teams nor Google Meets | either. But they do have a much slicker UI. | [deleted] | cycomanic wrote: | I can tell you that this is pretty much everyone. I've | just experienced this in some interviews and conferences | where people were using Zoom and Teams for the first | time. | | There was definitely much more confusion when using Zoom | than teams. How do I share my screen? How do I open the | participants/chat when sharing the screen ... The | interface especially when sharing a screen is absolutely | horrible. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-17 23:01 UTC)