Assuming you're on a paid plan then and afaik that's not that cheap. You might also challenge C level execs that you might save a lot of money using something like Bananas (once we reach v1 and have added needed features).

Also if zoom goes bankrupt, zoom stops functioning. Bananas is not (that) reliant on servers (except for negotiation of communication details, currently using Google's servers for that, but you could also use your own).

Zoom also has your account data and media is transferred through their servers, which for some people is not a big deal, but for others it might.

We use Google Workspace at work and their meeting functionality, which is quite limited. Previously I used Office365, which wasn't any better.

I'm a big fan of Tuple, but that's limited to Windows and MacOS, which is a deal breaker for me (using Linux).

Also, they want to have your data, including account setup.

I'm not saying that Bananas never evolves into something with accounts and friend-lists, but that should be always fully optional and opt in and open source.

it's mostly a matter of what you use, inertia and incumbency, no? for example we use slack and asking someone to download and install zoom to screen share would be a non starter for most people, as slack has the feature built in. in a teams shop asking someone to download slack or zoom would be a non starter, etc

Yes this was really what I meant. Zoom is our standard for virtual meetings, so suggesting or asking anyone to install something else to do a screen share would get pushback if not outright denied.

Most of the groups I work with use Signal or Jitsi...so it really depends upon the group you're working with. We never use Zoom!

I remember Jitsi being awesome, but as far as I can remember, you need to have a Jitsi server running, right? I wanted it to be as independent as possible of servers or orgs, so that when I get rolled over by a bus and stop paying for services, it still continues to work for everyone.