Talk:Comparison of web conferencing software/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment about Unlimited Participants and other comparison points

See external link http://www.masternewmedia.org/reports/webconferencing/guide/ for a 3rd party trusted comparison which has tested vendor comparison points as this Wikipedia comparison document has 0 references and the claims contained in it have not been verified. --DustyRain (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We could insert some reference to the concept "user experience", and qualify all the points to achieve a good "user experience". One of those points is the network proximity because of using the Internet. These leads also to the number of POP's and their localisation on the net. When you take a look on webex-mediatone, dim-dim, on24 there are some significant differences in these domain. comment added by Paantz (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: What does it take to add other web conferencing products to this list? Can I add some? -Tim

Off course, you are free to do it. If you have references that support your claims it would be even nicer! Diego Torquemada (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Original Research Discussion

Inconherent Text

  • What the heck does the Audio text "the remote control software transfers audio signals across the network and plays the audio through the speakers attached to the local computer. For example, music playback software normally sends audio signals to the locally-attached speakers, via some sound controller hardware. If the remote control software package supports audio transfer, the playback software can run on the remote computer, while the music can be heard from the local computer, as though the software were running locally" actually mean? (See Audio Support section at the bottom of the comparison chart). DustyRain (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
it means that if a program/event on the remote computer plays/generates a sound, that you'd hear normally on the remote computer, you hear that sound being played back on your computer instead. basically all audio-out is rerouted to your computer instead of being heard on the remote computer. Windows Vista's RDP (Remote Desktop Connection) has in the settings, the LOCAL RESOURCE tab, a "Remote Computer Sound" pull-down menu, in where you can choose if the audio plays on the remote computer, on yours, or being muted. Archangel Michael (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi DustyRain. My name is Tim Romero. This is my first attempt at adding to this site, so please be patient if I mess something up. First of all, I want to be completely transparent here, and you should know that I am the owner of a web conferencing service. I found this web conferencing comparison page and decided to send an email to the Wikipedia information team to find out how I might add my service to this comparison section.
Andrew Cartier replied and suggested I familiarize myself with the conflict of interest guidelines, and to make my proposal on the article's talk page, which is what lead me here. Perhaps I can be of some assistance in helping to improve some of the article issues you have mentioned, starting with the "incoherent text" about audio support. I have personally been hosting webinars for 10 years, and "incoherent" is certainly the correct term for this entry.
I also agree that the comparison points are obtuse and quite meaningless to anyone who is not familiar with using a web conferencing service or hosting webinars. I think defining each of the various features/ functions and/ or linking to some specific examples of practical useage under the "teminology" section is a good place to start.
Do you a agree?... If so, I would be happy to help. I just want to make sure I am doing it correctly and without violating the COI guidelines. Any advice on how I should proceed would be much appreciated.
Tim Romero (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi Tim Romero. I think that your contributions can be useful as long as they are not biased towards the services your company provides. I would like to ask you what are the recommendations you would give in order to make this a better comparison page? I mean, how would you compare the services of the different providers in order to make a fair comparison between services? Please feel free to improve the terminology section of the page. Diego Torquemada (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced Viewpoint

  • Some of the comparison points are inappropriate or confusing without providing details. The comparison points may be unbalanced to favour a vendor. This comparison was designed by someone who has 0 knowledge of the industry, it is pretty much just plain incorrect, unreliable, incomplete and suspect. DustyRain (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

the above comments

The user who added the above critical comments is apparently the developer of one of the software products mentioned, and earlier edited under the usernames User:Gary WebTrain and [[User:GaryECampbell]) (which were legitimately and openly changed to the present name [1]). This information was earlier discussed at [2] The complaints therefore may possibly be influenced to some extent by WP:Conflict of Interest. Myself, I cannot evaluate the actual merit of the objections. DGG (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this a useful page about software. very conform norms and rules on internet. JaapB (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice if someone would add a column to compare recording capabilities of each system.174.25.155.196 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Obtuse Comparisons

  • Comparison points are too obtuse to be of value. DustyRain (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What is Security Access? PhillColeman (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Discussion

Live Meeting works with Linux by running on the browser. Microsoft does not have a client for Linux but if you use the browser to join it works. However, it will be limited fucntionality.

  • There are errors in the document. DustyRain (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Show some or they might be overlooked. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Encrypted communication" column needs filling in. WebHuddle at least uses SSL (or TLS). I suspect others do as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.63.53 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • TokBox not working on Linux? Why? We are using it with no issues in Ubuntu 10.10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginateca (talk • contribs) 11:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Glance is no conferencing tool, if it does not support audio and video support, it is only a desktop sharing programme with chat functionality --Sailor2040 (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Add Column for Poll/Survey Ability?

Would it be useful to add a column for the ability to conduct an instant poll or survey and then display the results?

Another suggestion would be to add a "self-hosted" column (if the software has an option to host it yourself on your own server). --70.66.94.25 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ooVoo not in this list?

Is there a reason why ooVoo is not in this list? It even has its own Wikipedia article. Is there anyone here who uses it and can provide insight? Meşteşugarul - U 20:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to distinguish between client software and server software

In the present list, it is impossible to find out, if a mentioned product is a piece of software, where I can run the complete service on my own platform or if it's "only" a client. (My concrete requirement is, that I'm looking for a conferencing solution, which I can host on my own platform, but the list does not help me to find it.)

And when it's a client, it's unclear, which (virtual) machine it's running on (POSIX, WIN32ABI (like eg. the Teamviewer client), HTML4 (with or without Javascript), HTML5 (with or without Javascript), FlashVM, JVM, ...).

I'd propose to provide two separate tables (may be on two separate wiki articles), one for the servers, one for the clients and to provide the columns for the system requirements needed to run the respective application on.

At the very least, we should probably have a "self-hosted" column, so people can easily see if a solution can be hosted by people on their own servers. --70.66.76.76 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to restrict list entries

I propose that only software applications with their own Wikipedia article are included on this comparison list, on the basis that if an application is truly notable then any contributor should be prepared to create and justify an article about the product (in accordance with WP:PRODUCT and WP:LSC). Fæ (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose ~ It's a comparison list of web conferencing software, and not of "notable" web conferencing software. (Where "notable" is Wikipedia:Notability, which serves to decide whether a topic can have its own article on the English Wikipedia.) I don't think it is necessary for those kind of software to have their own article on the English Wikipedia as a requirement, as a necessary condition for being listed here. I think that they must be checked on a case-by-case basis. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose ~ If notable as in Wikipedia:Notability is not the criteria when what should be used? As a straw man proposal, how about, "Must be available for general use, support more than 2 users and provide a minimum of audio and desktop sharing capabilities". Kevink707 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: Software is software. Many people use this page to discover new ones and find out some information about them before trying them out. Meşteşugarul - U 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: I am beginning to see why we might want to restrict by notability. I am having trouble keeping track of all the solutions, and some of them are even discontinued. I may do some cleanup soon, but I must say that the list is beginning to be illegible. My opposition to this is being shaken by the fact that I am unsure if we are really accomplishing the goals of Wikipedia by including all of the software in this list. Meşteşugarul - U 15:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: Software is software, ... . It is not general wiki spirit (well to distinguish from the spirit of some apodictic Wikipedian police officers) to enforce, that a detail page must exist, before an "index" entry exists. As a user, I might find and use some table entry thing only via such a table and only afterwards am able to write a detail page. If one enforces the detail page before, one establishes a market distortion mechanism, which strengthens the position of mainstream items. -- Markus 4.354224E17 seconds after big bang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.246.236 (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree: We should follow general Wikipedia practice for articles like this (see WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC and WP:WTAF) and only list software that is notable by Wikipedia standards (see WP:GNG). Basically, significant coverage by at least two reliable sources. In practice this means the software should get an article first (passing notability requirements) and then add the link here. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree: The chart should only show those notable (page-linked) software or services. As a software or service goes out-of-date or becomes available, it should be de-listed or have a page written and listed. Much of what is on the chart could be enhanced by updating the notes, de-listing, adding (w/new page), and most importantly - adding column features. Most notably, there are proposals for additional columns that make comparison easier and more understood. Restrict software and services to those pre-qualified columns. Add columns whenever another software/service offers a new feature (in addition to those columns listed) that is qualified by a written page in the wiki. Edempco (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of web conferencing software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Table is hard to read

The table spreads too wide to fit in a readable font size. Should the table be split in sections, such as video capabilities, audio capabilities, platforms, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuri gavronski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Add Column for Ability to call in from phone?

JoinMe lets you call in from a mobile or landline phone. Worth including I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuri gavronski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Security Access

It is not explained what the column "Security Access" actually represents. Does it mean that connections are secure from third parties listeneing in? Or that only authorized users can join? This should be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.228.255 (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Jitsi?

Could someone add info for Jitsi please? Seems like a long-established open source tool, worth listing? mcld (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Coming here on 16 March 2020. The page is _linked to_ from Jitsi. Seems a glaring omission, also given that the whole table is just proprietary software? Not nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.251.166 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Blackboard Collaborate?

Possibly another omission. This example suggests it is a mainstream tool. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lifesize?

Possibly another omission. This [3] is a business-oriented video conferencing tool supporting most platforms (notably excluding Linux). Rick Beton (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

WebRTC?

WebRTC is important enabling technology because it is an open standard. Rick Beton (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Column proposal: requires installation

I would suggest to add a column "requires installation".

Green only for those that can be used out-of-the-box with a standard browser (i.e., that are HTML5 and WebRTC based).

Yellow if a limited functionality is available this way (such as viewing only, but no hosting of sessions).

--HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add Open Broadcaster Software

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Broadcaster_Software — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.237.163 (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

VSee should be included

VSee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.175.230 (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Amazon Chime

Amazon Chime's a good candidate for this list. Unfortunately, I am too lazy to look all of the info up. Djkcel (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Encrypted communication

What "encrypted communication" means is very vague, is it referring to end to end encryption or in-transit encryption. As if its e2e then google meet/hangouts Meet does not have encrypted communication and if it's in transit then why is zoom listed as No/X for encrypted communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoStorm (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

multiparty-meeting

Could someone add info for multiparty-meeting please? Seems like a pretty used open source system, worth listing? Along with Jitsi, it's for example supported on the iorestoacasa.work Italian project. Thanks. PepitoSgazzebuti (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ability to see cameras from all participants

I landed in this page looking for this specific capability. Does it worth including a column for that?

I think having a column for "Number of visible participants" would be ideal. Teams, for example, used to show 4, while Zoom will show 32. If you like stamps! Still, it is an important distinguisher Jgwinner (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the "Upload PPT" column is supposed to mean

The column about PPT is not really helpful (or not accurate). By "uploading a PowerPoint", I want to know if there is the ability of actually running a presentation during a meeting. BigBlueButton, for example has this checked as having this ability, but in fact, all it does is convert it to a PDF and show the static pages (no animation, transitions, embeds, etc.). I could just save it as a PDF in PowerPoint or showing jpg's if I just want to see pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimelobo (talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I think "screen sharing" is a more relevant feature. Maybe that terminology wasn't current when the chart was created. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I was checking on software for our writing critique groups (writers on average tend to be cheap as well as non-technical), and noticed that Teams was the only entry that had the word "Paid" on any of it's entries. Zoom, for example, requires payment for dialin (POTS) options as well. In fact, as near as I can tell everyone does. There are free conferencing options on most of the proprietary ones, with different levels of either max participants or max time. I think either the word 'paid' should be removed from Teams (it's free with O365), or "paid" added to all dial-in options; I think a "number of free participants" and "number of free minutes" would be good to add as well.

Webinar options make it complicated too.

I could take a stab at it if anyone wants. 

       == John ==

Jgwinner (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jgwinner:, go for it! Be bold. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing items

We should add BlueJeans and UberConference. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A good case could be made for adding Second Life (SL) (and OpenSimulator) as they've have effective Voice Chat since 2007, though they don't have Video Chat (though you can implement it, using LSL). Modern smart-phones can use SL, and it would appear to satisfy most of the requirements to be 'web conferencing software'. Is there a reason it's not included? -- Ace Dreamer Wiki (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Because that isn't its primary purpose? We might as well say that CounterStrike is web conferencing software. - MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What about Saba Meeting? [4]? It's also missing but used not only as conference s/w but as teaching s/w particularly in Middle East 166.87.184.229 (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

jitsi: whiteboard?

afaik jitsi does not contain or support any whiteboard. but in the table it seems that jitsi would have that. 2020-07-10 user:Ken4ward changed that[5] without giving a reason for this. -- seth (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

i changed it now. -- seth (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

new criteria

Been trying to add "Max. meeting duration (hours)", "Viewer Capacity" and rename "capacity" to "Participant Capacity" but the visual editor keeps bugging out. --Johnny Bin (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

audioless/videoless software ?

Why are audioless/videoless software are even in this list ? These criteria should not be needed in the table if all have it. --Johnny Bin (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

One has to scroll all the way to the bottom of the table to horizontally scroll it

One has to scroll all the way to the bottom of the table to horizontally scroll it. Jidanni (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software/Archive_1&oldid=1171149581"