Apologies if the observation was outside the bounds. It was not an anecdotal description, but one from the real world comparing the utility of the tool relative to its competition. It is not just a one time thing and other people’s opinions can vary. Doing a hearing or trial is a complicated business. More complicated than running a call within an organization or sales team, or even running a classroom with it.
There simply is no way I could have done a 2 day trial with WebEx. Well, I take that back, maybe, if we added an extra day to the time limit. But that would have blunted out the utility of running a virtual trial so that it was as close to the real thing as you can get.
The difference between the two programs, in the context of a legal setting, is very profound. I believe that is very material as to why Zoom is Zoom. It is not simply arbitrary or a novelty as to why Zoom has taken the world by storm when other options like WebEx, that have been around for years, has not.
I have never used TEAMS, so I won’t comment on that. The court systems are not using TEAMS. I understand document control and display works quite well with TEAMS, so that may be a better option than WebEx if it were used.
But between Zoom and WebEX, it is night and day difference. Zoom enables more complicated proceedings to take place. WebEX is fine for simpler matters, but is clearly a limited solution in the context of a courtroom proceeding.
If that is simply an anecdotal observation, then please delete. I believe it is informative and on topic in regard to explain why Zoom is not simply fly by night on a momentum run that will be eaten by at least its competitor WebEX. That is something I very much wanted to know as a Zoom investor. In my mind it explains the CAP that so many had difficulty understanding.
Tinker