←back to thread

1597 points seapunk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mikestew ◴[] No.22703219[source]
I have a need for Zoom, virus or no, but the point of the article is why I don't give them money. Give them money, while the company is apparently still going to worry about milking advertising dollars out of me? That's just going to be a strong "no". As the final paragraph of TFA says, either charge more or give away less for free. But if you're selling me out to advertisers after I've given you money, then you're one of "those" companies that I avoid if at all possible. Because they're skeezy. You don't want to appear skeezy, do you, Zoom?

So for now Skype and MS Teams works fine, or at least fine enough that I don't bother with Zoom. Which brings me to a side question: what is the value proposition for Zoom? What does their product do so much better than the others that I'd put up with this shit? Why am I hearing the hell out of it lately? Outstanding PR department?

EDIT: thanks for your answers to “why use it, then?” Because “it just works” seems to be the summary, which hoo boy, one cannot say about a lot of the competition.

replies(29): >>22703265 #>>22703271 #>>22703364 #>>22703382 #>>22703404 #>>22703580 #>>22703612 #>>22703697 #>>22703733 #>>22703760 #>>22703778 #>>22703833 #>>22704080 #>>22704128 #>>22704400 #>>22704642 #>>22704814 #>>22705137 #>>22705220 #>>22705347 #>>22705917 #>>22706107 #>>22706304 #>>22706493 #>>22707187 #>>22707586 #>>22708730 #>>22708818 #>>22709124 #
impendia ◴[] No.22703382[source]
> What does their product do so much better than the others that I'd put up with this shit?

I'll share my perspective as an academic. Many of us have adopted Zoom, practically overnight, for our teaching, for one-on-one meetings with students, and even for conferences [1].

The answer is: It just works. It's easy. It does what we want it to, with a minimum of fuss.

As someone who now has a whole bunch of unanticipated shit to deal with, this is one less thing to worry about.

I definitely share your objection in principle. If this situation continues long into the future (a terrifying thought), then perhaps I'll revisit my choice of software. But in the short term, to be honest, I don't much care.

[1] https://www.daniellitt.com/agonize/

replies(11): >>22703420 #>>22703766 #>>22705467 #>>22705546 #>>22705584 #>>22706044 #>>22706113 #>>22706132 #>>22706184 #>>22707182 #>>22707723 #
hobs ◴[] No.22703420[source]
Really trying to figure out a response that isnt flip - but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all?
replies(6): >>22703457 #>>22703466 #>>22703504 #>>22703532 #>>22703670 #>>22704618 #
matz1 ◴[] No.22703504[source]
In the end, its cost vs benefit. Does the benefit overweight the cost ? For most people, including me the answer is Yes.
replies(2): >>22703699 #>>22703746 #
hobs ◴[] No.22703746[source]
And that's why my question was calling privacy a principle, it seems like its not. You don't give up your principles because the cost outweighs the benefit - that's literally what principles are about, you do them when they are hard.
replies(2): >>22703825 #>>22705143 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.22705143[source]
> you don't give up your principles because the cost outweighs the benefit

Yes, a rational person does. You're thinking of dogma. People don't give up their dogmas when the costs outweigh its reasonable benefits because holding onto their belief system is practically infinitely valuable.

Dogmas are hard boundaries. Principles are guiding factors. Sacrificing privacy as a principle in the midst of a global pandemic is perfectly fine in most cases. It's still a guiding factor, but it's of lower priority than competing interests.