Most services would have buckled (examples abound like robinhoods recent outage) and part of their stack would have not been able to handle the load.
On top of that they are in new customer segments that I bet they didn’t see as their user base. I know more than a few elementary school teachers who are now hosting zoom classes with 15+ 5 year olds on a call.
Given the ease of setup of Zoom which defaulted to a machine-guessable URL which displayed email and other information about participants, this is one reason Zoom is rightly being scrutinized and criticized for poor security.
Was there any rational for them doing this?
Now every private room is by default secured with a password, I think.
Conference ids are numbers for easier dial-in?
They better get on those security concerns quickly if they want to retain these new customer segments:
"New York City bans Zoom in schools, citing security concerns" https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/05/zoom-new-york-city-schools...
"Instead, the city’s Dept. of Education is transitioning schools to Microsoft Teams, which the spokesperson said has the “same capabilities with appropriate security measures in place.”"
Most people use only the app or a phone call, for example to join a conference call hosted by someone else. Beyond business people on company-hosted calls, think students taking remote classes, grandmas connecting with their whole families, friends joining virtual happy hours, people playing social games, and so on.
Worldwide, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that a couple billion people have recently used Zoom.
Zoom has handled this ludicrous growth impressively well.
EDIT: Changed "suspect" to "wouldn't be shocked to find out," which more accurately reflects what I meant to write.
Additionally calendar invites often have a link to the zoom site, which then launches the app. So someone who is connecting via the app would still hit the website.
Not on iOS or Android devices (phones, tablets, Chromebooks, etc).
I suspect a good portion of that 700MM was simply people searching for Zoom to find out what is was, after hearing about it from others or in the news.
> Worldwide, I suspect around a couple billion people have recently used Zoom.
I recall seeing the number 200MM mentioned and I think that came from Zoom themselves (a blog post or something, maybe?) but don't hold me to that.
Technically it doesn't seem that hard -- just spin up a ton more servers. Unlike Facebook or Twitter or Reddit there isn't massive communication between all users at all times -- just one-off video calls that are "relatively" trivial to distribute among servers. (Sure there's cloud recording and stuff too, but the point still stands that this is certainly among the way easier products to scale.)
But assuming they're using cloud providers, I'm curious what percentage of spare cloud capacity they've wound up taking? If they've had to split up traffic between multiple major providers just to handle it?
Or if the increase is well within the capacity of any single cloud provider to handle easily, e.g. massive daytime spikes are essentially just using the same servers Netflix uses at night?
"We currently serve our users from 13 co-located data centers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States. We also utilize Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure for the hosting of certain critical aspects of our business. "
WSJ just wrote an article interviewing the CEO and other security experts on this topic. Some interesting excerpts:
> In the U.S., 27 attorney general’s offices have raised questions about privacy issues, Zoom said, adding it is cooperating with authorities.
> Security researchers also have scrutinized Zoom’s links to China. Researchers at the Citizen Lab, a security research group affiliated with the University of Toronto, on Friday said Zoom used an encryption technology that is considered substandard, and that in certain circumstances the company stored encryption keys—long strings of numbers and characters that can be used to access encoded communications—on servers based in China.
> Brendan Ittelson, head of technical support at Zoom, said because of the distributed nature of the company’s infrastructure, meeting data can be routed through different data centers around the world. Zoom’s system first tries to send this data locally, but if the connections fail, the backup route might send it elsewhere.
> Zoom had created a system to prevent this data from being sent through China when calls originate in the U.S. But when traffic surged starting in February, some data was mistakenly routed that way, the company said, adding that it has remedied the problem. Critics also have questioned whether Zoom’s heavy reliance on China-based engineering could pose a security risk.
Personal opinion: I think we should all boycott Zoom until there is a guarantee of where the data is stored with independent audits. In this pandemic, we've given our privacy (facial features, email, screen sharing, video data and application usage patterns) to Zoom in a whim. The entire world has done so. I have no trust in the Chinese Communist Party and their potential to exploit this data if they get it. Perhaps not in the immediate future, but may be in year 2027 - suppressing voices, threats and border control, detentions of people who spoke against the CCP during the pandemic or after caught using the facial AI technologies from the data collected today. This is real and we should all be concerned.
There can be no guarantee with a proprietary software. Just switch to free software...
Trying to discourage people from disseminating this information under the auspices of “virtue signaling” is unhelpful.
Some people build technology, some people research and critique it.
Would you tell researchers who demonstrate critical vulnerabilities in technology that they should build something better instead of just talking about it?
Yet on these high-level comments I have a reaction to tell to build rather than critique.
It must be that the OP faults a company that’s providing tremendous value to society. It’s not without its faults, but to focus on that seem petty? Tone death?
The more I think about your retort of the security the more I think it’s a false comparison. The good ones, demonstrate exactly what the problem is and sometimes even provide a solution.
Here the solution is to use software that has more friction, that robs the grandmas of the world of connection and waste peoples time fixing technology.
So with that I stand by my original comment of don’t criticize, build.
You wrote "organs of executed prisons for transplant / sale, then slowly morphed into an extremely lucrative industry generating HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS". China has a $14 trillion dollar economy, so surely HUNDREDS of billions is not correct?
Also do you have a citation for the Mao quote. I would like to see the screenshot and/or the full canonical English translation. I am very interested in learning more.
Organs per individual go for $2,000,000 if a full ECMO harvest can be done.
That is quite a bit of money, but illegal medical experimentation, as documented by the book "ScienceMart", generates an equivalent amount. Obviously the experimentees might not wind up completely dead like the organ transplant victims though.