Zoom is Testing Showing Ads To Free Users (theverge.com) 49
Zoom is piloting showing ads to users on its free "Basic" tier, the company has announced in a blog post. From a report: Ads will appear on the browser page shown to users at the end of a call. Zoom says ads are being rolled out to free users in "certain countries," though its blog post doesn't detail exactly which these are. Users on the service's Basic tier will only see ads if they join a meeting hosted by another Basic tier user. Although ads won't be shown during meetings themselves, it's still a potentially big shift for the videoconferencing service. Zoom has typically imposed only minor restrictions on its free tier, which helped the service explode in popularity last year as people around the world adapted to working and socializing from home. Even its end-to-end encryption, which Zoom initially said would be limited to paid users, ended up coming to free users after all.
Zoom will START showing ads soon. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just one more reason to use Google Meet or MS Teams
MS Teams was a pain in the ass setting up (no MS Account prior), and they required my fucking phone number, and they verified that I could receive SPAM calls and texts before granting me an account.
My impression was not positive.
wow! (Score:3)
and absolutely no one was surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet they will be when 10 minutes into their meeting it cuts to a 10s video advertisement.
Remember when youtube had no ads, then ads at the beginning, then ads in the middle of videos.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, i remember, then i installed an adblocker and never had to deal with it again
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
I flat out refuse to watch ads that someone/something tries to flush down my throat. So: 1) I will not watch (OK, they don't care, since as they can't know and get paid anyway); 2) I will campaign against use of zoom for any meeting I get invited to.
More seriously: Before a (key) meeting, some people will want to make sure they are 100% focused on whatever is is they are trying to achieve. Any stupid/irrelevant or maybe even relevant-but-not-at-all-appropriate-for-the-occasion ad may interfere wit
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta Monetize that Valuation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Gotta Monetize that Valuation (Score:2)
It's feeding a monster that only grows bigger and thus demands to be fed more and more as time goes on.
This is not limited to the rich, as I had to cut a few toxic people out of my life who behaved in this manner.
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree, its everyone, its how the system works, blaming the rich is just picking on a particular group. Most people with the choice of would you like to make more money will say yes. There is no limit to how much you should earn. I see this as the systemic flaw with the current system, not racism, not sexism, but a large portion of the population just wanting more, so you take advantage of the people you can.
Think of it this way an average black woman in the USA has a lifestyle that is absolute lux
Re: Gotta Monetize that Valuation (Score:2)
What we see is all out hoarding. The only difference is it's nice things rather than old newspapers being hoarded.
Society should not suffer because of somebody in high places's mental illness, but that is exactly what is happening.
Yeah, we have the freedom to get rich, but when it becomes destructive to society as a whole, then we've got a big problem.
Should had done that on day 1. (Score:2)
You go to the store and they offer you free samples. You didn't go to the store for those samples, but they were nice and added to the experience, They continued giving free samples for a few years, then all of a sudden they stop, giving you free samples. You feel disappointed and your view of that store has diminished.
You have a baby who is happy with its bottle, they will stay happy. If you give them a piece of candy, they will be happy too, however if take that candy away the baby will start to cry.
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably right, about peoples responses, but I would not be upset with them if they put ads before or after the meeting, especially if they extended the max time for free meetings. If they put ads inside I would leave that interferes with the functionality they are providing.
This is like youtube ads, a few is OK, I understand they need to make money, I am quite happy to watch an ad or two at the start, but then they got greedy stick ads in so much that they seem to almost be more than the video, tha
I don't think Zoom can survive. (Score:5, Insightful)
People won't accept ads. People won't pay for Zoom. Zoom won't be able to compete against big players such as Google, Facebook or Microsoft.
Also, anybody can start a Zoom competitor. Jisti meet is free and open source.
Zoom will likely endup being bought. They should sell while they are still worth something.
Re: (Score:3)
Getting acquired for stupid-billions-of-dollars isn't such a bad "end."
WhatsApp was a good free messaging app, just like a zillion others, including ones from the big boys. Anybody could write one. The WhatsApp founders literally hired a Russian guy from RentACoder.com to write theirs. It provided a decent feature set, didn't annoy users with ads, and claimed important things like "end-to-end" encryption. You could pay a bit for it if you wanted to, and that revenue could have supported a maintenance team t
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's not bad.
But still, the whatsapp app wasn't worth anything. What Facebook paid for was its userbase / network effect. Zoom doesn't have such a network effect. There is a small inertia because some people have it installed, but switching is easy.
Also, whatsapp was not going to survive even with a $1/year fee. People would have switched to a free alternative, one day or another.
They sold at the right time, however.
Re: (Score:2)
"Network effect" isn't a magic spell. Most people have multiple messengers installed. Facebook operates at least three of them, including WhatsApp. It's technically easy to switch. Zoom is the same. As is Windows. People like what they know. That's why you lure them in with a free hit, then make them pay later.
Zoom probably can't survive as an independent, ad supported platform because intrusive ads are annoying and marketers only want to pay for intrusive ads. That doesn't mean it's not worth billions of d
Re: (Score:3)
"Network effect" isn't a magic spell. Most people have multiple messengers installed. Facebook operates at least three of them, including WhatsApp. It's technically easy to switch. Zoom is the same. As is Windows. People like what they know. That's why you lure them in with a free hit, then make them pay later.
It's not easy to switch from whatsapp if all your friends are using it. It's very easy to switch from Zoom however, as you can just provide a link to your friends, you are not using the Zoom app to be "called in".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone who's had a problem switching from What's App. It's not hard to switch from Zoom either, but it is a pain in the ass.
"Network effect" is a buzz word that means "pay me billions for something I hired a Russian to do in a weekend."
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when you successfully switch from Facebook to a competitor. The network effect is real, and that's the only reason people can't easily leave Facebook (and to a lesser extend whatsapp). You have to be where your friends are. So unless you can convince them to switch, you can't just pick your preferred network.
Even on Slashdot, I've read many people say they are on iOS at least in part because their friends are on iMessage/Facetime, and don't want to be left out.
Well, Jisti is free... (Score:3)
... unless you consider Jisti free to be an ad for Jisti paid. And open source has nothing to do with it. Once real infrastructure is involved, bills have to be paid. Look at Sourceforge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whether you like it or not, Facebook, Google and Microsoft all offers video conferencing for free, without ads. They make their money with their other products, and businesses who pay for the "pro" version of these services.
It's just like a web browser. Nobody pays for one.
Re: (Score:2)
You touch on an interesting point. Offering something for free that requires infrastructure, and not telling users it may have to be monetized later somehow, is essentially a bait and switch. I get why they don't tell you and you can argue that this should be assumed by the savvy user, but as a point of transparency and good faith, we should be told up front. Anything else is either dishonest or so shortsighted that it calls into question the founders' business acumen and, consequently, their ability to mak
Re: Well, Jisti is free... (Score:2)
BS. You can run Jitsi on your DSL company server. One I worked for even had an Ansible script to spin up a room instance within seconds.
You can install one on dedicated spacr at AWS or Google or Azure, or...
So yes, Jitsi is absolutely free. Someone decided to also make a buck offering services to someone who couldn't be bothered yo install their own, which is ok. All of free software works like this - as a true option, not as as quality-of-service based blackmailing.
Re: I don't think Zoom can survive. (Score:2)
And this just feeds into the world's resources being concentrated into the hands of the very rich few.
I don't want Zoom to sell to anybody. I'll deal with ads at the end of a call. If they get too out of hand, I'll switch to a competitor who will be there because the demand is there.
Encouraging small players to hop into bed with giant mega corps only pushes us to the dystopian future we don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not encouraging anything. I'm just predicting it won't work. Ads that you are not forced to watch (because you can just close the window) won't be worth much. If they are worth something, it's because they are annoying. And if I am annoyed, I'll switch to something else.
Re: (Score:2)
People won't accept ads. People won't pay for Zoom..
That really depends. Give the free tier the features of a paid one but have ads served may be compelling enough for many users. An argument could be made to offer organizations / companies Zoom for free in exchange for being able to target ads to their users. They wouldn't even have to get detailed info beyond broad demographics, location, etc. A school district / non-profit may see it as a way to get Zoom and save money, for example.
Zoom won't be able to compete against big players such as Google, Facebook or Microsoft..
That is a challenge they need to overcome with a more compelling produ
Re: (Score:2)
People won't accept ads. People won't pay for Zoom..
That really depends. Give the free tier the features of a paid one but have ads served may be compelling enough for many users. An argument could be made to offer organizations / companies Zoom for free in exchange for being able to target ads to their users. They wouldn't even have to get detailed info beyond broad demographics, location, etc. A school district / non-profit may see it as a way to get Zoom and save money, for example.
The paid tier will remain, and it is how they make most of their money. Zoom is considering adding ads to the free tier, probably because they consider they loose too much money with that service. The last thing they want is to drive their paying customers (including schools) towards their free service.
The problem is that there is no ads even in the free tiers of their competitors. So why should I choose Zoom?
Zoom won't be able to compete against big players such as Google, Facebook or Microsoft..
That is a challenge they need to overcome with a more compelling product.
There is a limit to what a video conferencing platform can do. And if you have a good idea, everybo
Re: (Score:2)
People won't pay for Zoom.
Zoom's revenue is in the billions. Someone is paying them for something.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses are. They can pick between Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, Webex, etc.
Group of friends doing a video call have free options, all of which don't currently show any ads. It's the free version of Zoom which is going nowhere if they are forcing ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not Cisco. They are not going to survive by being a corporate-only video conferencing tool. Also, Cisco probably doesn't really care about the profitability of its webex service. They want to sell their expensive hardware. Zoom doesn't have anything else to offer. Their only business plan is to be cheaper than Microsoft Teams and Google Meet, both of which offer much more because of their integration. If they are no longer cheaper, they are doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm not following in your argument is how Zoom losing free-tier users relates to its ability to survive long term. How do groups of friends catching up over Zoom help Zoom's business case? Google/Facebook offer these services for free because they can harvest user data and bring people into their other, profitable services, but how would Zoom benefit?
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's how they got their brand name. Businesses are made of people. When it's the time to pick a video conferencing solution, the only reason they consider Zoom is because they know it exists. A lot of people know Zoom because they've used it personally, the free version.
WebEx is an example of a business-only service. It existed long before Zoom. It didn't get the same hype when video conferencing exploded during the pandemic, in large part because of a lack of a free, personal use / group of frien
Zoom, Meet Jitsi (Score:4, Informative)
They're [meet.jit.si] showing no ads. And they're free. As in beer and as in speech. And your sysadmin can host a server of your DSL company line if you need more control.
May not be an issue (Score:3, Informative)
The article blurb say, "Ads will appear on the browser page shown to users at the end of a call."
Do most people run Zoom in their browser as opposed to directly running the application?
In either case if it's limited to the end of the call I expect most won't care.
Re: (Score:1)
Quite. Like all other meeting software I use in the browser (people in various teams can't make up their minds which one is to be used across the company), as soon as I leave the meeting, I close the tab. If it tries to show me an ad, that just means I'll close the tab quicker.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, welcome our new advertisement-fueled meeting software overlords.
...same as the old advertisement-fueled overlords.
I'm old enough to remember advertisement-fueled network TV, although not quite old enough to remember advertisement-fueled radio dramas.
Certain countries (Score:2)
America, Unites States, and the USA
The price of free (Score:4, Insightful)
Advertising is the price of free. The Slashdot trope "if you are not the customer you are the product" applies here. This is the usual formula:
1. Offer free service.
2. Wait until it achieves a sustainable level of success.
3. Insert ads.
4. Profit.
Why are people surprised when free services start inserting ads? Free email, free file storage, free news, free video streaming, free navigation, free video games -- all paid for by ads. I for one will happily pay for quality services. But everyone has this addiction to free services then gets angry when it turns out all those servers actually cost money.
By contrast, there is legitimate gripe when the company charges you a monthly fee *AND* sells your data and gives you ads.
skype (Score:2)