
Zoom transforms hype into huge jump in sales, customers - baylearn
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-02/zoom-transforms-hype-into-huge-jump-in-sales-customers
======
dang
We've moved most comments to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23399924](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23399924),
which was posted earlier and is specifically about the encryption-or-lack-
thereof issue.

The submitted title on this submission was "Zoom’s CEO says he won’t encrypt
free calls so Zoom can work more with the FBI", but we reverted it to the
original title in accordance with the site guidelines
([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).
There's more about that at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23400869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23400869).

------
ykevinator
Why is zoom succeeding? Its truly a mystery to me. Why don't people just use
meet or teams, which are free?

~~~
steviedotboston
Zoom and Meet have similar time limits. Teams requires a Microsoft account.

Zoom is popular because its very easy to use and runs well. My work uses both
Zoom and Meet and the connection quality is noticeably better in Zoom.

------
baylearn
During a conference call, Eric Yuan said: “Free users for sure we don’t want
to give that because we also want to work together with FBI, with local law
enforcement in case some people use Zoom for a bad purpose.” (From the
article)

------
murat131
Old title: CEO says free calls on Zoom are not encrypted

New title: Business is booming

------
photonios
No paywall URL: [http://archive.is/R84zx](http://archive.is/R84zx)

------
treelovinhippie
Nice work on censoring the original title HN mods ಠ_ಠ

You asshats completely altered the sentiment of the post. Original title had
to do with Zoom CEO saying they are not encrypting calls on free plans so they
can more easily work with the FBI.

Does the mod who made that change happen to own stock in Zoom?

~~~
baylearn
And only that part of the story would be of interest to the HN community. That
was the reason I used that title.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this story slide off the front page real soon.

~~~
dang
Edit: I see your point, because that's literally the only interesting thing
about the article.

It turns out that the author of the article thinks so too, because he tweeted
[https://twitter.com/nicoagrant/status/1268020841054269440](https://twitter.com/nicoagrant/status/1268020841054269440).
Not only that, but that another user submitted that to HN an hour before you
posted the Bloomberg article:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23399924](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23399924).
It seems like the fairest solution is to merge the threads and let the other
submission be the primary thread. If we had karma-sharing, we'd share the
karma, but we don't yet—sorry.

Original comment below, but I'd probably have written it differently now. This
was really a borderline case, where the rule in the guidelines doesn't help
that much.

\-----

There's a straightforward solution to this problem: you should have used the
original title, as the site guidelines ask, and then posted a comment
explaining what you thought was important about the article.

Titles are by far the strongest influence on threads, and being the first to
submit an article on HN confers no special rights to frame the content for
everybody else. Posting an initial comment is the obvious fix, because then
your view is on a level playing field with everbody else's:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22level%20playing%20field%22&sort=byDate&type=comment).

Edit: Actually, I'm sympathetic to the predicament here, because the bulk of
this article is namby-pamby "Zoom is growing" stuff that isn't interesting.
But a single sentence at the end of such an article isn't enough to make a
good HN submission. In that case what you should have done instead was post
some other article that goes in-depth into the important issue. If there's no
such other article, then maybe the issue isn't that important. Or, if you're
the first to notice how important it is, then you could write something about
how important it is and post that instead.

~~~
treelovinhippie
Perhaps title changes that alter the sentiment should trigger a new post to be
made. Because this post clearly rose to the front page on a negative
sentiment. Then the title was changed to a positive sentiment while keeping
all the upvote and comment stats. And now all the comments are out of context
with the new title.

~~~
dang
In such cases we sometimes post a comment explaining what the submitted title
was and pointing out that some of the comments make more sense in the context
of the earlier title. In this case, we don't need to do that because there's a
top subthread complaining about the title change in the first place.

