Posted by keroshanpillay 2 hours ago
We tried to expand Zoom licenses during COVID because it worked better, and were told “no, use Teams.” We barely held on to Slack, which is only used (albeit heavily) by a few engineers and product folks now. Everyone else uses Teams as instructed…
Given that M$'s Office revenue for commercial and customer segments was around $50B, it's safe to say that GSuite is substantially smaller.
My workplace discarded Zoom because of its terms of use. They evaluated the stuff from IBM, Google, and F5. At the end none of those options actually worked, and MS added Teams to our license. I'm still annoyed that nobody bothered looking at jitsi.
The sad message to founders is not that “early” doesn’t win — Zoom was in no way “early” — it’s that “better” doesn’t win. And/or that consumer success and enterprise success have very different leverage points.
Is there any indication that the rise and fall in Zoom's stock price was due to the market failing to predict the commodification of video conferencing, or simply a case of pandemic exuberance? Peloton's stocks also has seen a similar rise and fall, and it's not like they got bundled into G-Suite or whatever. At best there's Apple Fitness, but that's been around far before the stock price jump.
I may be misremembering but wasn't it _Google_ who worked it out first (Hangouts was free and easy to use) and then fumbled it so badly that Zoom entered much later with a sorta-okay alternative at just the right point in time?
I truly don't understand how Google keep breaking good products but I remember Hangouts being kind-of amazing for a moment there.
(This is tangential and I don't think it undermines the article)
Hangouts was just like "call your mum" level of video conferencing.
This video demonstrates an early version of it (from 2011!): https://youtu.be/KLf9jzFvkTA
Essentially OpenAI can't enter our company unless there is a compelling reason.
There will be 1000s of such companies.
What really interests me is, for the very first time, following a link to twitter and viewing something that is intelligible and digestable and cohesive in format and not some weird mid-conversation snippet that can't be viewed in context nor expanded nor make any logical sense of replies, etc.
It's almost as if someone at twitter bothered to survey online discussion formats of the last 40 years and choose some decent design guidelines ...
Sure, it is nice if it had genre "Ambient", but it's up to users. What is a filler for you, might be an engaging story for others.
You can usually tell what it's meant to be just by color grading and audio mixing in the trailer. I want "audio sounds like it was recorded in a sterile podcast studio" tag more.