To be honest, that's also because they probably want their employees to use one of their 37 different video-conferencing apps.

Funny and true but also because companies should really scrutinize this kind of software more carefully. Your meeting app "participates" in some of the most delicate conversations.

I used Zoom exactly once. I was invited, I installed the software and Chrome extension as a regular user. I had a mediocre experience in the meeting but didn't pay too much attention, and then proceeded to uninstall the software when I got a prompt that I need to do it as admin.

For me this was a clear warning signal that they want the software to be there especially in companies (that didn't block it) where many users may end up installing it but then aren't able to remove and just forget about it.

Then I started reading about their installer "mishap", their general encryption scheme weakness "mishap", their encryption key routing through China (!!!) "mishap", the redefining of E2EE "mishap", the default settings "mishap", and the mishaps just piled on to the point where I personally believe only a great deal of ignorance or blissfulness could allow a company to still use it.

I get schools and individuals do, it's "free", meaning they don't pay with money and they don't need to look any further than that. But I refuse to ever use it again and when I got Zoom invitations I politely declined, offered to host the meeting myself, or else just asked to be sent the meeting notes on mail. I have no reason to believe Zoom intends to fix their issues but rather to hide them better next time.

I'm not sure if you are kidding, but that's not the reason. It was a decision by the security team and a reaction to multiple security issues that were found in the Zoom client. Google employees can still use the Zoom web client on work computers.

China has been accused a number of times of engaging in industrial espionage. As a company developing a lot of high technology products, I think Google is entirely justified in keep Zoom out of its technology infrastructure.

If it wasn't clear, I was just being sarcastic about Google's huge number of messaging products... I fully agree with your statement, their move totally makes sense from an IP protection standpoint.

It's three products but it has 27 different names.

Not really, Google happily let its employees use competitor products. There's no real precedent.

Sounds like a Silicon Valley scene!

I'm not surprised. My company has also done this. Basically it's because we don't have an agreement with them about data protection, and we can't have company information going over 3rd party systems without a contract.