In most companies I've observed, the people deciding what products to buy are not capable of reviewing any of the products claims. If they happen to have an employee that is capable, and that employee points out a problem, they are usually ignored. Especially if it would make someone in management look bad for spending money on something they shouldn't have, or even worse if it would make them lose their free lunches and golf trips with their vendor buddy.

Now these are small to medium-ish size companies (20-500 people), so maybe it's not a big deal to Zoom's marketing bottom line. But it's definitely a thing.

People are doing 50-200 person video meetings with Google? Has Meet really improved that much since March/April? That’s not that long ago. Otherwise it seems more like cost is the reason. Not anything relating to quality.

While we pay lip service to Zoom's super shitty security stance, we now run a video meeting service where it's trivially easy to click the "turn on captions" button, and see how good a job the world's biggest advertising agency is doing of transcribing all the audio in our most sensitive business WFH calls... :sigh:

(I have my own Jitsi Meet instance running on AWS, but there's me and about four of my tinfoil headwear sporting friends who care enough to bother using it...)

Teams or Meet works fine (unlike the train wreck of Skype), have improved recently and are already paid for.

Saving face by not admitting egregious mistakes and even lying about making or not making them even after the evidence is public and irrefutable is just the human ego defending itself.

I'm starting to get past taht sort of childishness in my own life but having lived it for a long time I see it easily in others.