Zoom added a mail feature. Tell me why?(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Zoom added a mail feature. Tell me why?
https://twitter.com/allenholub/status/1772674824059695127
46 comments
Worse, the problem is that the metric for this feature won't ever be "customers asked us for a mail client and are now paying us for a mail client". Instead, it will be "engagement" aka wasted human time, from people who now have to endlessly press "not now" to dismiss popups for a feature they didn't ask for and have no need for.
Most software is "finished" at some point, but it just keeps going. Spotify is a great example. If they kept it as it was from like three for four years ago and just let me keep streaming, that would have been perfect. I'm fine with a subscription for a hosted service with no features being added. I don't think VCs like to see that though.
The addition of lyrics a year or two back was nice.
I'm confused as to why their TV app doesn't have a visualizer. Seems that would be an obvious add.
I'm confused as to why their TV app doesn't have a visualizer. Seems that would be an obvious add.
I could swear lyrics were a thing ten years ago as an app in Spotify
Yes! Part of my disdain for Spotify recently is because they removed lyrics about six years ago and when you clicked the button, it started saying "lyrics will be back soon". Then that button disappeared for like five years...
Lyrics are notoriously difficult to license. If I had to guess, I'd say they disappeared for legal reasons, not because there was a lack of will from the product/tech side.
I like Spotify.
It suffers a lot of the same problems that iTunes did...
Features dont fit in the UI so they all get "grafted" in.
If your on a playlist that isnt yours, there is not a good way to figure out the year the song is from (is it new, is this from the 60's ... ). Then its 3 clicks to get back to your current play list.
They need to figure out what the next 5 years of feature are and build a UI redesign that will support that + more.
It suffers a lot of the same problems that iTunes did...
Features dont fit in the UI so they all get "grafted" in.
If your on a playlist that isnt yours, there is not a good way to figure out the year the song is from (is it new, is this from the 60's ... ). Then its 3 clicks to get back to your current play list.
They need to figure out what the next 5 years of feature are and build a UI redesign that will support that + more.
> If your on a playlist that isnt yours, there is not a good way to figure out the year the song is from (is it new, is this from the 60's ... ). Then its 3 clicks to get back to your current play list.
Right-click song, go to album, look at album year (2 clicks).
Click back button. (1 click)
Right-click song, go to album, look at album year (2 clicks).
Click back button. (1 click)
I just went and looked, it's 2 clicks from the "current song playing" in the lower left. Click on the song NAME and it will take you to the album and then back to the playlist.
If you click on the album art it opens the "now playing" window. That has some credits but not the year of publication. (and is missing publisher, producer unless that's part of the "artist" info..)
Mind you if your looking at your play list, the album art and song title are not clickable, but the artist is? The album is listed in playlist and clickable. (so none of this behaves like current playing song in lower left though it looks the same).
What is the point of the now playing window? Big album art? Selling me stuff that I never scroll down to see?
If you click on the album art it opens the "now playing" window. That has some credits but not the year of publication. (and is missing publisher, producer unless that's part of the "artist" info..)
Mind you if your looking at your play list, the album art and song title are not clickable, but the artist is? The album is listed in playlist and clickable. (so none of this behaves like current playing song in lower left though it looks the same).
What is the point of the now playing window? Big album art? Selling me stuff that I never scroll down to see?
Yeah, totally agree. We love to make wrong things righter.
It's because zoom is losing some market share to MS Teams, because Teams is able to bundle a bunch of other services in addition to video meetings -- email, CMS, chat, calendar, etc.
Everyone who uses Teams hates it, but to a detached executive who doesn't use it, it checks off a lot more required technology boxes, and a company can get away with just using Teams and not having Zoom, but they can't do it the other way without buying a bunch of other products from other vendors.
Everyone who uses Teams hates it, but to a detached executive who doesn't use it, it checks off a lot more required technology boxes, and a company can get away with just using Teams and not having Zoom, but they can't do it the other way without buying a bunch of other products from other vendors.
I use Teams for work. I also use zoom fairly frequently for calls with firms who use that instead. Honestly for video calls it's very much of a muchness, though I do wish Teams was a little bit less resource heavy (having said that "new" Teams does seem to be a bit of an improvement on that front). They both work pretty much as well as each other for straight video calling, they each have their quirks but I wouldn't say either is particularly better.
But as you say Teams also has text chat integrated with the company directory, and much better integration with Outlook etc. It's gradually swallowing SharePoint as well from what I can tell (which is no bad thing).
The product in this space I really dread having to use is WebEx.
But as you say Teams also has text chat integrated with the company directory, and much better integration with Outlook etc. It's gradually swallowing SharePoint as well from what I can tell (which is no bad thing).
The product in this space I really dread having to use is WebEx.
Maybe i'm the only one bothered but... Teams has no way to see more than 4 people together on screen unless you use the horrible "together mode"?
Isn't that bothering anybody else?
The first time I've been surprisingly impressed by teams happened the other day. With Edge, if you open a link from a teams chat, Edge will open a side at with that chat.
For a technical team working issues, that's actually a neat UI feature.
For a technical team working issues, that's actually a neat UI feature.
Unfortunately some of us really do not wish to use Edge.
i don't hate teams. i actually love the energy that MS is throwing behind it. i just wish it was lighter-weight and worked properly in safari.
Always hilarious to see Zawinski’s Law in action: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1502...
This was my first thought as well. Isn’t there another truism, where something advances to a common end state?
Convergent evolution would be the general term I think. Not sure if there's a pithy technological or software -ism.
The form of this that became a meme relatively recently was carcinization - "everything becomes crabs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
This is what I was thinking of, thank you!!
My guess is that monetizing a video conferencing service simply isn't a viable long-term strategy so the company knows that they'll eventually need to develop new revenue sources.
I'm skeptical Zoom will be able to parlay their success in video conferencing to grow into a full business collaboration suite, but it's worth a shot. They got lucky that Microsoft and Google messed with their popular video conferencing services just before a global pandemic, but I expect that eventually other product suites will build in enough video conferencing that few people will bother with a 3rd party one. After all, even with incompetent management you can build a passable clone as long as you pour enough money into it.
I'm skeptical Zoom will be able to parlay their success in video conferencing to grow into a full business collaboration suite, but it's worth a shot. They got lucky that Microsoft and Google messed with their popular video conferencing services just before a global pandemic, but I expect that eventually other product suites will build in enough video conferencing that few people will bother with a 3rd party one. After all, even with incompetent management you can build a passable clone as long as you pour enough money into it.
All those apps are Office in the limit; it’s just that some won’t make it. People want their office suite integrated into one Swiss Army knife in the hopes of a better experience than a dozen specialized tools which only marginally cooperate.
And also for organisations single tool is likely to be cheaper collecting number of separate ones, each with their own subscriptions and over head in managing that.
Which really is what makes MS offering so good.
Which really is what makes MS offering so good.
I’m not nearly as cynical on this one, and I’m surprised about the negativity.
Small business mail sucks. It’s either Microsoft Office (feels like ancient software if you scratch too deep - some settings require remote PowerShell!), Google Workspace (do I need to say more?), or Zoho (the world’s greatest collection of 80% complete software).
Competition is a good thing.
Small business mail sucks. It’s either Microsoft Office (feels like ancient software if you scratch too deep - some settings require remote PowerShell!), Google Workspace (do I need to say more?), or Zoho (the world’s greatest collection of 80% complete software).
Competition is a good thing.
> Google Workspace (do I need to say more?)
Yes, I think you do?
> Microsoft Office (feels like ancient software if you scratch too deep - some settings require remote PowerShell!)
Strange criticism. Can you name a setting in Microsoft Office that you are finding yourself modifying through Remote Powershell that is available in another means in Google Workspace, Zoho, or Zoom's mail capability?
Yes, I think you do?
> Microsoft Office (feels like ancient software if you scratch too deep - some settings require remote PowerShell!)
Strange criticism. Can you name a setting in Microsoft Office that you are finding yourself modifying through Remote Powershell that is available in another means in Google Workspace, Zoho, or Zoom's mail capability?
> Strange criticism. Can you name a setting in Microsoft Office that you are finding yourself modifying through Remote Powershell that is available in another means in Google Workspace, Zoho, or Zoom's mail capability?
Not OP, but I think they were likely referring to the admin side of things. There are definitely functions in Microsoft 365/Exchange Online that cannot be done through the web UI and require either a powershell module or just connecting to their Graph API.
For small business email (non-tech company, no internal IT and/or not big enough for an MSP), M365/exchange online can be difficult to set up securely and properly. Microsoft security defaults have gone a long way to help here, but it's still beyond the average person.
I definitely see room in the market for for something simpler than both Exchange (online) and Google Workspace for companies small enough to not have/need internal IT or an MSP
Not OP, but I think they were likely referring to the admin side of things. There are definitely functions in Microsoft 365/Exchange Online that cannot be done through the web UI and require either a powershell module or just connecting to their Graph API.
For small business email (non-tech company, no internal IT and/or not big enough for an MSP), M365/exchange online can be difficult to set up securely and properly. Microsoft security defaults have gone a long way to help here, but it's still beyond the average person.
I definitely see room in the market for for something simpler than both Exchange (online) and Google Workspace for companies small enough to not have/need internal IT or an MSP
OK, but my point is I'm guessing that you CAN set those with MS365, whereas you can't set them AT ALL with the other options.
So it's not really fair to criticize M365 for having an obscure difficult way to configure something that isn't configurable at all through the others, right?
So it's not really fair to criticize M365 for having an obscure difficult way to configure something that isn't configurable at all through the others, right?
Zawinski’s Law in action?
A company that has a commodity videoconferencing app is clearly not worth $20 billion dollars. Zoom needs to parlay its COVID good luck into something bigger (e.g. an office productivity/collaboration) to try and justify that $20B. It's misguided to try and pin this on product people. This mission comes from way above their pay grade.
It is quite hilarious that huge product teams believe that customers or users wants more features
"Google Search added a mail feature. Tell me why?"
Have people lost their mind?
Have people lost their mind?
Gmail succeeded because it innovated on the storage amount; before Gmail I think you had like 500MB in Hotmail and it was whack a mol clearing it under quota.
What is the innovation that zoom is introducing, and will it have same value?
What is the innovation that zoom is introducing, and will it have same value?
You don't need to innovate to justify having a feature
A nicely integrated and secure solution is all that is needed
You want to live in a Google/Microsoft pseudo duopoly (in reality it's a monopoly) world, there is a plethora of people that don't
A nicely integrated and secure solution is all that is needed
You want to live in a Google/Microsoft pseudo duopoly (in reality it's a monopoly) world, there is a plethora of people that don't
Oh sorry, it was 2MB.
https://www.webmasterworld.com/gmail_advertising/134.htm
https://www.webmasterworld.com/gmail_advertising/134.htm
Exactly, google offered superior product. Enough space for most people even if they were not using it. And competent enough experience. Or even better one. Web mails used be rather bad...
GMail wasn't even the first search engine to offer a webmail service! Yahoo got there first.
It looks like zoom product team thinks they are a feature factory
I don't know the details of this feature, but as someone in the enterprise software space, I'd place money on a large customer specifically asking for this feature.
It might be convenient to have email pertaining to a specific project tied to the Zoom collaboration.
Until having a few random eggs in a different basket becomes a total hassle.
Until having a few random eggs in a different basket becomes a total hassle.
What I find funny is that Teams does not have mail... It has everything else, but not mail... I might sometimes use mail there, but oh well...
Wasn't there a joke going around that every commercial software eventually bloats to include a calendar and email functionality?
Our tech stacks are steaming piles of ass because applications are never "finished". We even do this ourselves, apps that dont get updates are looked down on more often than being seen as "complete"