←back to thread

796 points _Microft | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
aequitas ◴[] No.22736838[source]
Not that I'm in favor of this practice, but the one key feature that conference software must have is: it just works™.

Nothing turns you off more from a conferencing solution than: any problem getting it working right now.

When there is just the slightest issue, one person not being able to join, one person not getting voice to work, bad audio, your entire team is blocked/distracted. Which results in a collective distain for the solution and video conferencing as a whole.

This extends to getting the solution working for greenfield installs as simple as possible. Because who knows which non-tech users from which department all need to join and can't figure out how to set the permission in their browser right or install/use the other browser that is compatible.

So sadly, from a functionality point of view, you want have the software be able to force itself onto the user in the most usable state it can.

replies(8): >>22736886 #>>22737349 #>>22737355 #>>22737357 #>>22737381 #>>22737449 #>>22738084 #>>22738434 #
t0mas88 ◴[] No.22736886[source]
I'm still curious why everyone thinks Zoom "just works" while others don't. Because in an enterprise context it is often hard to download an executable and run it with sufficient permissions. While Google and Microsoft both offer a product that "just works" with only a browser. What makes Zoom more "just works" than that?
replies(16): >>22736916 #>>22736940 #>>22737051 #>>22737108 #>>22737143 #>>22737238 #>>22737841 #>>22738424 #>>22738725 #>>22739146 #>>22739536 #>>22739595 #>>22739641 #>>22739741 #>>22739848 #>>22740219 #
aequitas ◴[] No.22737051[source]
We just had a corporate presentation with around 250 people. Normally we use Teams or Slack for internal communication, this was also stated by management, that Zoom should only be used for 'big' meetings like this. I think they know the other solutions will not work as well for bigger groups. I've not had issues with using either solution for small group meetings.

Actually I have to go out of my way to run Zoom in the browser instead of using the installer. I have to use Chrome instead of Firefox, download but not install the app and wait for the "or run in browser" link to appear after that.

I really don't like macOS installers anyways and passionately hate them as "installing" and App on macOS should be nothing more than moving the .app from a zip or disk image into your /Applications folder. I just don't trust them in not placing additional crap like auto updaters or kext's when I don't need them.

replies(4): >>22737111 #>>22737819 #>>22739780 #>>22739893 #
Wowfunhappy ◴[] No.22739893[source]
> Normally we use Teams or Slack for internal communication

> to run Zoom in the browser [...] I have to use Chrome instead of Firefox.

Just a note, Slack and Teams calls also won't work in Firefox. It's really annoying.

Hangouts works fine in Firefox though, somewhat unexpectedly.

replies(1): >>22741460 #
1. cpeterso ◴[] No.22741460[source]
Here are the Firefox bug reports for Slack calls:

https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/12975

And Teams calls:

https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/25070

Slack originally relied on non-standard, Chrome-specific WebRTC behavior and now is prioritizing development of their Electron app over web support.

There is a Firefox extension to spoof Chrome's User-Agent string for Teams. I haven't tested it, but it appears to work for people: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/teams-phone-f...