IMHO those you mention who make money are, in this case, qualified further to a category of products that in essence are not complicated. Video conferencing is not complicated until you have scaling problems. Similarly, Facebook was not complicated until it got millions of users at which point most of their interesting code had to do with scaling.
My point is that Zoom is replaceable and in fact, IMO should be replaced. Their tactics of using these dodgy techniques is because they want to have an edge over competition along the lines of "it just works".
I would contrast this to pure research services that add value that would otherwise not be there. Examples of this would be at the time that they were startups: Google (search algorithms) or Spotify (music categorisation algorithms). I'm not saying that today either of Google or Spotify are paragons of morality. At the hardware level I would include Tesla (battery tech) and Intel (processors).
My point is that the shady practises are at this point Zoom's product offering. If their video scaling algorithms are superior (and not just lifted from some open source libraries) then that should be their product offering. Not "it just works" via security exploits.
How much of this is related to the software though and how much is related to home internet speeds, camera quality, microphone quality, etc.? Most laptops ship with really low quality webcams and mics, and that’s predominantly what people are using.
The difference between Zoom and Google Hangouts is staggering. Zoom works way better. I actually love it from a usability perspective, though it's frustrating because if Apple/Microsoft/Google could agree on an open standard with open-source clients/protocols Zoom wouldn't be necessary.
I've just been using Slack video (for small groups or one-on-ones) and BlueJeans for larger meetings. I've tried Zoom and didn't see what it added on top of BlueJeans except for feeling like malware.
Dropbox won early on for having the same user-friendly affordances. I can't say if I was making Zoom, that I wouldn't err on the side of usability at first, also.
My point is that Zoom is replaceable and in fact, IMO should be replaced. Their tactics of using these dodgy techniques is because they want to have an edge over competition along the lines of "it just works".
I would contrast this to pure research services that add value that would otherwise not be there. Examples of this would be at the time that they were startups: Google (search algorithms) or Spotify (music categorisation algorithms). I'm not saying that today either of Google or Spotify are paragons of morality. At the hardware level I would include Tesla (battery tech) and Intel (processors).
My point is that the shady practises are at this point Zoom's product offering. If their video scaling algorithms are superior (and not just lifted from some open source libraries) then that should be their product offering. Not "it just works" via security exploits.
Edit: Typos.