Which company do you prefer to use for cloud-based video conferencing?
Displaying poll results.8146 total votes.
You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford
You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford
zoom security (Score:1)
i said zokm but think a lot less of them after the recent exploits and dubious security found in their app on mac. local always on web server and image sizes to bypass security sandboxing. :(
Re:zoom security (Score:5, Interesting)
And when you get invited to a zoom conference, you get sent an email which contains a link, you follow that link and it prompts you to download and execute a binary. Looks exactly like a phishing email, and services like this are the reason that so many users fall for phishing mails like that.
Next Poll: What tech giant buys Zoom? (Score:1)
Google ... and how much?
Microsoft
Facebook
Huawei
Dell/EMC
Oracle
Amazon
Cisco
Other
Comparison (Score:2)
Whatever CowboyNeal uses. (Score:3)
I'd pick whatever CowboyNeal uses for the moment.
Re:Whatever CowboyNeal uses. (Score:4)
I don't understand the question. Why are these "cloud" video conferencing? Does the video get sent to the cloud? Why would I want that instead of using P2P?
In any case, the answer is "none of the above".
Re: (Score:2)
Because lots of conferences are not P2P, and when they're spread around the world, the cloud helps with QoS for video/audio (latency, jitter, packet loss).
Re: (Score:2)
the cloud helps with QoS for video/audio (latency, jitter, packet loss).
I see, by "cloud" you mean the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you haven't educated yourself the last decade.
"I see, by 'car' you mean a carriage"
Re: (Score:3)
Because ipv6 is not yet ubiquitous, and most ipv4 users are behind one or more layers of nat (often outside of their control) which breaks p2p applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Because for p2p to work one user has to be able to accept an inbound connection from another... With most users behind nat gateways they cannot do this, so users are unable to communicate unless they have a third party (cloud provider in this case) who is able to accept inbound connections from the users.
Re: (Score:2)
It's generally a bad thing because it breaks applications and creates inconvenience, and also provides a false sense of security. Once you have a foothold inside, the devices can be swiss cheese.
Consumer oriented ipv6 routers block unsolicited inbound connections by default, and you can decide what you want to allow.
Re: (Score:2)
CowboyNeal's option is best option.
Whatever my employer has selected for me (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing that is what many of us end up using...
Re: (Score:2)
I find the "skypeforlinux" application on Linux (Gentoo in my case) to be fairly robust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
zoom seems decent in my limited experience
Re: (Score:2)
Or whatever different systems your various third parties (suppliers, clients etc) use...
Each one has its own shitty proprietary app, requiring you to install and manage multiple poorly written applications, assuming your IT department even lets you do so.
Even if your company uses X, you might be dealing with a client who uses Y, and neither of you is able to install the other onto your corporate devices. What a colossal and grotesque mess.
If there is something which is 100% web based and works with any mode
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, i dunno. I might just attend a meeting with multilingual pantomime.
Intercall (Score:2)
Personally whatever the person setting up the meeting uses is fine with me. I use Intercall because that’s what we use.
[John]
Wire (Score:1)
None at all, ever. (Score:2)
I despise video conferencing, and sooo many office techs respond to any support situation with "Do we need to set up a WebEx for for this?". What they really want is to share their screen with me so I can fix whatever is wrong for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I basically agree with this, but still...
I can't actually remember the name of the one I liked, though I'm sure it was none of those. Nor does the list seem to include Facebook's product, which my wife used recently. There's also Line with such a capability on my smartphone, but again not an option.
Who is coming up with these poll ideas, anyway? I can't remember the one I submitted recently, but it can't possibly be as lame as this one and the previous one.
Cloud based (Score:2)
You mean
This stuff existed for so long before keywords as "Cloud" even existed... and isn't skype actually p2p in reality ?
CloudboyNeal (Score:1)
It's the only good option.
Jitsi (Score:1)
Jitsi is all that is needed.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjitsi.org%2Fjitsi-meet%2F [jitsi.org]
Re: Just hope you're not forced to use MS Teams (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s interesting: I have the exact opposite opinion.
We were force migrated from Google to Microsoft last year... and pretty much hated all of it. But my team found that Teams is actually pretty decent - definitely better than Skype For Business (why does it start âoenewâ conversations with people Iâ(TM)m already chatting with?!).
Weâ(TM)ve completely focused on using Teams and we now use it for messaging, chat room and video conference (the video conferencing is great - with g
They all suck (Score:2)
Re: They all suck (Score:1)
Missing option (Score:2)
I vastly prefer to avoid video conferencing altogether. If it must be a distance thing, then I'm the one joining by phone. My organization uses Skype (God knows why, it never works properly), so there isn't much choice in the matter.
cloud-based video (Score:1)
I'm old-fashioned. I prefer my clouds to be cirrus, stratus, cumulus, and nimbus or variations thereof. I don't need video clouds.
Skype / PGI (Score:2)
Skype is pretty convenient since it's got IM and VoIP integrated so it's easy to jump in a meeting and share the screen or other content. But it seems that experiences issues quite often and people have to rejoin meetings or restart Skype altogether. So the backup solution is PGI Connect or whatever it's called, that used to be the pirmary method before Skype. It's a bit more awkward to use but seem to be a bit more stable and reliable, and works with more attendees.
I selected "Other" (Score:2)
Because I don't really have a preference. I'd just as soon not be doing videoconferencing at all because it's basically a meeting, and the vast majority of meetings are a waste of time.
When I do need to participate in a videoconference, I use whatever has been chosen for that particular meeting. Right now, our department tends to go with Zoom, which at least doesn't have the Skype incompatibility issues.
Actually I do have one preference. The one I prefer to AVOID is Skype.
Re: (Score:2)
it's basically a meeting, and the vast majority of meetings are a waste of time.
Repeating for emphasis.
Zoom has been the most usable (Score:2)
Zoom has been rock stable for the last two years, and we've basically had no problems since we switched. With offices in New York and Denver and people in satellite offices all over the U.S. we use Zoom basically nonstop and it's never had any major issues. With every other service we had whole days where the system
Poll options? (Score:1)
Video Conferencing is wonderful (Score:2)
Coming from a time when we had dedicated ISDN lines between conferencing "rooms" setup like television studios to a brave new world where "Microsoft Support" calls you and remotes into your virtual machine to "fix your problems" it just is amazing.
Ir is always a pleasure to look at the faces of the people in the video conference as they lie to you.
What time is it in Mumbai right now?
GNU Gatekeeper (Score:2)
Not fresh, but all P2P and OpenSource and by open ITU spec.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnugk.org%2F [gnugk.org]
Really? Cloud-based Video Conferencing? (Score:1)
BigBlueButton (Score:1)
Other (Score:1)
appear.in
Slack? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon Ring (Score:2)
We just work from home those days and stand on our front porches, then let the Amazon Ring do the videoconferencing for us.
Other: Appear.in (Score:2)
Seems to have better audio/video quality than Zoom or Skype for the calls I'm making (Within North America, to Europe and the Middle East).
Also doesn't have a time restriction (for now).
Of course, YMMV.
Prefer Zoom (Score:2)
I've not used all of thumbnut so far, Zoom has had the best quality. Slacks video chat is pretty decent as well.
Google's has always been the worst. Sometimes I use it for work but always prefer almost anything else.