If IT is too helpless to pick Zoom vs Ubeeconference vs whatever, what’s the point in having them?
Conversely, if you are a developer and you have time to be shopping for video conferencing solutions, what’s the point in having you?
Conversely, if you are a developer and you have time to be shopping for video conferencing solutions, what’s the point in having you?
I am often forced to spend a ton of time dealing with tools that don’t work. At my company a lot of meetings start with 10 minutes trying to make the phone conference work. So it’s good use of time to look for tools that work.
Same with Jira. IT bought it and promised to customize it but the last three years they haven’t done anything. so we are now setting it up ourselves. it’s not what we want to do but still the most efficient way to allow us to work.
I don’t know how buying decisions get made but I am pretty sure that user satisfaction is on the lower end of factors that get considered.
I have been making the same "joke" for years on calls that everyone on the call should join me in quitting our jobs to create a teleconference solution that works. Hardyharhar.
(The practical solution for teleconferencing issues is to get people to join a couple minutes early)
Right now we are using MS Teams which so far has been reliable. I am just waiting for the day when it becomes flaky too.
I wouldn't discount the parent's post so quickly.
If everybody has to join early, then "early" is the new "on time". It's just sacrificing a different n minutes for setup issues.
Similarly, I've seen a few companies where it's just assumed that a 9:00 meeting really starts at 9:05, so everybody has time to travel from their last meeting. I think the videoconference nonsense is effectively the same. It doesn't really matter if you designate 8:57-9:00 as your "make sure your tools work" time or 9:00-9:03. It just matters that everybody has the same expectation.
You are most certainly not alone. In one Joshua Fluke's video, he accurately describes the feeling [1].