Stuff like this makes me downright angry. Because people not into IT think Zoom is now equivalent to online meetings and many events are held with Zoom too. Job interviews, etc. Most people don't have any idea that their software is so bad and they are a scummy company best avoided. I'm trying to let the people around me know, but mostly they don't care.
Half the options that should be on a meeting-basis are buried deep into the user settings, only accessible from the web interface, and they have confusing names and meanings. I've used lots of softwares, Zoom might be one of the worst when it comes to UX.
Teams, Google Meet, etc all seem to fall apart on large calls with participants who have questionable hardware and/or wifi. Zoom works with those same people.
This is based on my experience early in the pandemic, so it's possible the landscape has changed since then. We tried a bunch of different options at my company, because we explicitly didn't want to use Zoom, but Zoom worked like nothing else did.
"Upon arriving in the US, Yuan joined WebEx, a web conferencing startup, where he was one of the first 20 hires. The company was acquired by Cisco Systems in 2007, at which time he became vice president of engineering. In 2011, Yuan pitched a new smartphone-friendly video conferencing system to Cisco management. When the idea was rejected, Yuan left Cisco to establish his own company, Zoom Video Communications."
Agreed, Zoom does shitty things. But everything else is worse.
Zoom's UX is horrendous. My biggest complaint is it logging me out all the damn time because I switch between laptop and desktop fairly regularly. But its windowing UI also drives me nuts. Their timing and marketing was clearly excellent, but it's a shame that Teams is what's eating their portion of the pie rather than Meet.
So, your top three choices are Google (weird ties to the US state dept), Microsoft (lobbied for cloud act, acquired linkedin and github so they could join the data with mandatory windows and office telemetry) and an independent company with weird ties to the Chinese govt.
Do you really have a strong opinion about which one is the least bad choice?
> So, your top three choices are Google (weird ties to the US state dept), Microsoft (lobbied for cloud act, acquired linkedin and github so they could join the data with mandatory windows and office telemetry) and an independent company with weird ties to the Chinese govt.
> Do you really have a strong opinion about which one is the least bad choice?
I suspect that, if you're in the US or China already (which, just to say it explicitly, I recognize does not apply to everyone on HN), then you perceive a meaningful difference in whether any improper use of data will expose that data to the US, or to the Chinese, government. Even if your personal threat assessment finds no difference in those risks, then you probably at least have a strong opinion whether it's better to have your data improperly exposed to a government of whatever country, or to a private corporation.
What's wrong with the State Dept? They work on peace and diplomacy. They are probably one of the best branches of government as their job is to build international trust and cooperation and avoid wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_St...
Same here. Particularly the windowing. On a dual-screen setup, Zoom controls go off to other places and do not stay where they were left. I've had multiple experiences of not being able to find the Zoom buttons while I'm on a call.
Second, it drops you out of meetings sometimes while you are screen sharing, and gives you no way to know. It's sporadic on my machine whether the green highlight/frame shows up on screen sharing to indicate that the content is still being shared.
Teams is full of weird bugs and strange UI, but it is the only conferencing app I've used that seamlessly transitions between devices during a meeting.
I feel most features in teams are worse than others or have major issues. These are issues I currently have with Teams:
Search results that don't allow you to go to the specific part of long conversations.
Wiki that doesn't even qualify as wiki.
Integrated calendar that automatically tries to make you join meetings you have not yet responded to (with no way to configure not to happen).
Inconsistent ability to quote reply to peoples messages.
Hap-hazard method of starting meeting recordings (anyone can do it and with the latest update they become the owner instead of the meeting organiser).
External guests can't access meeting recordings.
Inserts non visible spaces into code you paste in and does not strip it properly when copying and pasting out.
Emoji selection popup fails to load if you join a meeting with busy chat as loading new messages takes priority.
Inconsistent loading of tabs when you join a meeting, so some people cant do Q/A or look at files (but can be loaded in a separate window even whilst the meeting is running.
Bigger issues like high CPU usage (massively compared to Zoom) with lots of attendees and far more limited visible attendee screens (compared to Zoom).
At the moment obvious defects seem to be added faster than they are removed.
Teams is just so bad. If a company you're interviewing for has chosen to use Teams, what people do you think they choose to promote? What strategies to pursue? Clearly their decision making process is broken, and the consequences probably don't stop at using shitty software.
I'm exaggerating a bit, but for me Teams is a real turn-off.
Are there any other options that actually work well? At least Teams is "free", as in people already using Office365 don't have to pay anything.
We use Teams at work, and I think it's an absolute pile of crap. But whenever I have to attend meetings using other systems, the experience is pretty much never great either.
Zoom has a weird windowing system, stealing focus all the time, and shows notifications as actual windows (as opposed to using the notification system).
Google meet sometimes squeezes my webcam image for some reason. It also transforms my PC in a jet airplane.
Chime sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Usually, it won't detect my microphone. If I refresh the page enough times, it will end up working.
Webex mostly works, but it's sooo laggy. It also needs me to have the window focused if I connect too early to a meeting and am the first one there. If it's unfocused, it will not connect to the audio, so I'm left waiting around wondering why people are always late. And it insists on showing a bunch of useless crap around the main image. I know who's in the meeting, so if they're sharing their screen, I want to see that instead of their names taking up half the screen.
At least on Mac you can tell Zoom to use Mac notifications now, and to use "dual monitor mode" even if you don't have two monitors, which seems to help.
Of all the various meeting tools, Zoom is the best, but that's damning with faint praise.
As someone who is interviewing at the moment. I won't completely dismiss the company for using Teams (and expecting the interviewee to 'cope' with the crap experience) but it immediately puts that company in the "hmm, I'll do this interview for the practice and maybe they'll surprise me" camp ...
Teams is worse than zoom certainly, but it's better than Cisco WebEx.
Slack used to be good - especially for just a background chat, but then they hid the "start a call" option away and pushed "huddles", which are far worse.
There's a solid rule of thumb that most software that is good becomes worse. Product managers have to push new features in to justify their job, if the software was 75% good before, there's a 3:1 chance that the change will make it objectively worse, and even higher chance that it will break your workflow and cause you to take cognitive load away from important things to learn how to deal with it in a new way.
Unfortunately I've noticed that "product owners" have become significantly less engaged with steering the product direction. I guess people either don't find it interesting, or they keep getting threatened by higher up and don't feel like they have enough power or own the product.
> Integrated calendar that automatically tries to make you join meetings you have not yet responded to (with no way to configure not to happen).
Oh man, that calendar is such a shitshow, and it's also not only on Teams, but also on Outlook.
It's able to detect some other conferencing software and add a "join" button, for example Webex.
But, for some reason, it systematically fails to recognize Teams links sent from a company we work with a lot. If I click the "join meeting" link inside the invitation, Teams will open and join said meeting, but it never shows the "join" button on the event in the calendar view.
Oh the quoting is absolutely appalling, but on my Mac it is the only one out of the work chats that actually supports pasting an animated gif into the chat.
> Search results that don't allow you to go to the specific part of long conversations.
This is so frustrating. How could anyone work on this feature and not realise how useless it is to see the message in question but not any of the surrounding discussion for context.
It’s horrible. Especially if you’re doing screen sharing / scribbling on screens all day. “The zoom dance” is my term for people constantly pushing those stupid little floating windows about.
We switched to zoom though because the performance was just better than anything (we tried a boat load of tools - but most of them were just shiny saas offerings on top of Chrome). Now I’m on an M1 it doesn’t matter as much, but zoom was the only thing that didn’t totally kill our machines before that.
The zoom dance is real. I very frequently find myself pushing things around in vain because I am only dedicating a portion of my brain to the task and I can never quite believe that it’s impossible to lay things out in a way that is actually usable. So there’s like a 5% mental cpu task that’s just constantly pushing things around due to this vague feeling that obviously I will find the better arrangement. It must be there, right?
Zoom UI is horrendous. But it’s also not quite as bad as teams, and everyone has learned to cope with it. So it’s the best of an absolute shitpile. Teams will remain a complete joke to me as long as I am forced to play the “try to map initials to names” game in order to figure out who is talking. I don’t know my coworkers by their initials, Microsoft. I don’t know why you can’t just show me actual names.
Meeting UI people: here is a list of questions that I find myself constantly asking myself: who is talking? Who just finished talking? Who is in this meeting? Who just joined? Who just left? If you waste an entire screen on nearly information-free user tiles and make me open a separate window to answer these types of questions (or they are impossible to answer), I hate you.
> Teams will remain a complete joke to me as long as I am forced to play the “try to map initials to names” game in order to figure out who is talking. I don’t know my coworkers by their initials, Microsoft. I don’t know why you can’t just show me actual names.
I’d say the expectation is that everyone sets their actual photo as their profile picture, that would probably solve your problem.
Most of my teams meeting take place on client organizations, where I'm a guest of the directory, or just invited to the call. I never see profile pictures, and I cant find a place to edit mine.
I'm almost willing to pay good money to someone who can explain how MS' user management works wrt belonging to multiple accounts/orgs/acive directories.
I’m not asking it to help me know them. I’m asking it to use an identifier I recognize. On earth, we use names.
And regarding profile pictures, I’d say 10% of the people I interact with on zoom have them, and 0% of the people I interact with on teams. These platforms should get over themselves and realize people aren’t spending time customizing their profiles, because it’s just not important. You’re just a tool, zoom/teams. Try not to go wild with your fantasy of becoming a “virtual town square” that is integral to all aspects of life or whatever you are telling yourself internally. First goal is making meetings less of a pain in the ass.
I’m one of those who hates Zoom’s UX. They use dark patterns to try to trick you into installing rather than using the web client. And their web UI is… not great.
I’ve had better experiences as an attendee on other software. (I think one was Gotomeeting). Works flawlessly in the browser. No dark patterns like the way Zoom tries to trick you into downloading their malware.
And the interface was superior, in my opinion. No idea how good / bad the presenter UX is, though.
Wait. Is it possible to use the Web client? I asked external people who had set up a zoom meeting to reschedule on Google meet, because I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to use their web ui.
Yes. The join via web button should join after you click the regular "join" link once. If you don't have zoom installed it will just pop up not working then you can join via web.
It's been a little while since then, but I remember downloading at least three executables, getting annoyed, And setting up a google meet event instead.
It is possible, but it misses features. For example, the thing that I ran into recently is that web zoom cannot switch between multiple camera's of another person on the call -- e.g. if they have some fancy conference room setup.
Yup. The thing I absolutely love about Zoom is how easy it is to switch between mics and output device. Every other conferencing tool needs you to go to Settings > Voice and then change it. With Zoom, just click the arrow next to the mute button, select device and voila!
I can't stand this feature, because it overrides my OS-level choice. If I select my headset as the microphone to use, then I expect it to be used. But Zoom might use a different microphone, so I need to change it there as well.
In addition, even if I select "System default microphone", that doesn't always work correctly. As far as I can tell, that option doesn't mean to attach to the default source. Instead, it means to attach to the same source that is currently bound to the default source. If I change the default source later, Zoom doesn't get moved along with it.
Some recent update of zoom and or pipewire made this absolutely broken. I need to manually go and change my Bluetooth headset source from A2DP to HSP before opening zoom or it crashes and I can't select any microphone.
It's insanely annoying. Zoom has caused more crashes ob my machine than any other piece of software.
My wife had a mixer attached to her Mac where she plugged in her phone for music and her wireless mic when she was teaching online dance classes during the height of Covid. She absolutely needed to be able to switch to the mixer which registers as a sound input device separate from system settings when she was doing anything else.
True. I keep it at "System default microphone" but its not 100% reliable. BUT, that is also the case with every other conferencing tool as well (Meet, Teams etc). At least in Zoom its easier to quickly override it when things go south.
Same issues here. I don’t care that my dock has a mic port that Zoom and Teams think they should automatically use. Use the damn system setting for my hardwired headset mic.
Really don’t know why this setting isn’t always up front and center just like the mute button. With just the default audio interface i have a few options and a lot of us have more than just the default interface.
While we are at it why can’t I control what audio interfaces are available to a specific program on a program by program basis? No, I will never want to use Steam Streaming Audio or my Oculus quest mic on a webex/zoom. Ever.
Do you mean Google Meet, or Google Meet (Original), which are two seperate apps?
Or were you you referring to Duo, which is also called Google Meet now. Or Hangouts, the other Google video chat app which also exists for some reason? Or Google Hangouts Meet, which also existed? Or Google Allo?
It's better than Google Meet because Zoom won't shut itself down in 6 months, replace Zoom with a different app with a different name, change the name, change the name again, then shut that down and repeat the cycle 6 months later.
This is the one redeeming quality of Meet, and it's worth a lot. I can click on a link that was sent to me and all the essential videoconferencing stuff will just work in my browser. Also in Firefox, regardless of what sibling says (I use it regularly on Linux and macOS).
This is a technical feat that somehiw still escapes most of the other videoconferencing platforms (except maybe Zoom, but then they try to hide it as much as possible).
What do you have against Meet? It's a better solution than Zoom. It doesn't have built in whiteboarding, granted, but for that you can use an online whiteboarding tool.
My impression is that zoom has more features. Breakout rooms, predefined set of meeting hosts etc. But having to install the app on the computer is a pain. "I'm going to join this Zoom meeting starting now." "Nope, you have to update the app first." Is not fun.
Predefined hosts is a place that is lacking. In general Meet started as a "everyone is mostly trusted" tool which is way better for office meetings so their host controls are behind (but slowly being added). Zoom is by default "only the host is trusted" which is very annoying in my day-to-day use. (For example you can't have a weekly meeting because the "organizer" is on vacation and can't start it. You can't screenshare because the host needs to approve, you can't join before the host... Most of these can be changed by default in your settings but I'd course most people in my company haven't done this so we run into problems at least weekly and need to scramble to send around a new link and hope that we manage to get everyone into the same call.
But that being said I think Zoom is still the better option for "untrusted" setups like seminars, presentations or other complex or large events. Meet is far better UX for meetings.
> Most people don’t actually care about or even notice that confusion.
You are very, very wrong:
1) Old people get very confused even when the interface changes.
2) The changes are irritating even if you know Google products
3) Change for the sake of change (someone at Google wants to get promoted) is just a waste of time, especially as the products are half baked. Maybe you are very young and your time is worthless, but most people want products that just work, with a non confusing interface. Change for the sake of change is something that busy-bodies do to prove that they are useful
4) Google has killed its own products multiple times, so at some point the stuff just stops working. Why bother using a product that will not work?
Seriously, it has been few years that everyone knows that Google does its business wrong: those on top should be removed, since it is a lot of money lost. In both of marketshare lost and lots of programmers reinventing the wheel multiple times to offer a half baked product.
Every few days I see people who cannot use Microsoft TEAMS (which has a poor interface) and I can easily see that if they used Google products, those constant unnecessary changes would make their lives miserable and make them less productive. Maybe reason why Google products are a joke in corporate environment.
I dont really use Zoom, used it mostly to see how it works - and from technology perspective it can be full of holes, but from UI perspective it is much better than the competition. Also probably wont be shut down in 3 months like Google Meet Duo Allo v5.
I find the Zoom interface UX to be terrible, but keep coming back because it’s way better in ways that matter once you’re used to that.
I’ve found that the screenshare quality in Zoom is rather strikingly better than in Meet, to the point that sharing a large screen with an editor full of text is frequently unreadable on Meet but perfectly crisp in Zoom.
Also, Zoom does some sort of background noise cancellation that is really impressive. I don’t know if other apps don’t do it, or do it worse, but it’s noticeable on calls (I use both Zoom and Meet daily). I was curious so I tested it from a coworking space recently: recording my headset mic in the open room I could hear voices, an espresso machine and some distant music pretty clearly. Joining a Zoom and doing the same and my background audio was genuinely silent.
Also the Zoom client has much better touch-ups and lighting controls. When I use Zoom now, I don’t need to use my studio lights but when I do Google Meet or any other web-based one, half my face is in the shadow and there’s no software way to fix it.
For one, Meet has consistently the worst picture and audio quality at least in my experience. I daily have about 4 or 5 zoom meetings and 1 or 2 meet meetings per week so it's not a small sample. On a day where I'm pumping out zoom meetings in perfect quality, Meet will be degrading the video to the point where I can scarcely recognize people and having audio sync problems. In the last couple of years I seldom have had "meet" meetings where at least one participant doesn't lose sync, lose audio or just get kicked randomly, where these occurrances are (anecdotally, in my experience) much less frequent for zoom. It gets particularly bad when you get above a certain number of participants.
I don't recall meet being this bad a few years ago (I used to be at a company that used it for all internal meetings) so I don't know whether some infrastructure changes have occurred to make it so.
I can actually read the code when someone shares screen and scrolls. With google meet (whichever version), when sharing small dense font, things get mighty blurry when scrolling is happening. At least for me.
In every case I get worse audio and video through Meet than Zoom, and more stuttering. And similar issues with audio and camera, especially if people have more than one.
Zoom doesn’t require an account. All you need is the meeting number and password to join a call.
And one of the recent Google meet offerings (not sure exactly which one but it was about a year ago) required an account before I could connect to the call. Perhaps it’s different now.
Meet is annoying because I have to remember to sign out or open them in a private window if I don't want to leak details associated with the current gmail account logged in.
There is no panacea here that I’m aware of. We’ve been getting pretty good mileage out of a mix of Telegram, Discord, and Google Meet, all of which I prefer to Zoom, but none are crushing this and none are optimized for big video calls like Zoom is.
Not surprisingly given it’s gamer heritage, Discord is slick and fast for many-party voice and the present/screen-share is better than I expected, but video chat needs work and there are other nags.
I have somewhat high hopes for Telegram because it usually does things well or not at all, but I also wouldn’t want to try getting 20 people in a videoconference.
I never liked in-person meetings with tons of people in the room, and one presenter, many listener video/screen broadcast is very achievable today without Zoom. Maybe it’s a hard UX problem because it’s a fundamentally flawed collaboration model, who knows.
I only use Zoom with chrome (because I don't allow their apps anywhere near me) and they are just barely usable there.
They made that very hard by pushing their desktop app. They also broke audio on Linux very often. Another long running bug is that after you've muted yourself in the meeting for long enough they start to think you did not give them microphone access and refuse to let you unmute yourself.
Quite honestly I would be love to hear an argument as to why anyone would use zoom over jitsi. I'm not trying to be controversial, and I readily admits I've only used zoom maybe twice, but I saw nothing that was better than jitsi.
I also had performance issues on zoom, but I'm willing to ignore that since most other people don't seem to mention those issue so that's probably on me.
Previous job was using self-hosted Jitsi. And it was often a trainwreck, with random disconnections, terrible video quality (and we didn’t use it very often), some people ~always displaying "connection lost" even though we could hear each other fine, some people always having connection issues and being disconnected after a few seconds. Zoom and Teams are much more stable.
Main downsides I knw of are a slightly worse codec, and in webrtc mode bandwidth needs to scale with participants so for large meetings you need to pay for hosting somehow.
Neither are reasons not to use it as a default first option.
Also matrix has voice and video now and there's big blue button.
My aunt that do remote conference a lot told me jitsi is slow and ureliable? She's not very tech savy so maybe she had a bad experience at the time when lockdown happen and the servers might have been overloaded.
Yes, we're transition firm zoom to teams, and as we're engineers, I'll sorely miss the screen annotation feature which works so well. Teams just added active anntoation and it totally sucks, the presenter can't interact with the screen while annotation is on. Sweet jesus why do that?
The main "advantage" that I can see to prefer Zoom is that Zoom ("Zhumu") is considered by the authorities in China as safe, so it's not blocked there (which is convenient if you speak to people in China).
WhereBy is no-login, no-plugin conferencing tool. Albeit expensive now (They’ve been jacking up the prices regularly and show no sign of stopping), but it is entirely possible to make extremely simple webconf UX.
Ironic that you say this. I have a MacBook pro and the zoom application just wouldn't start successfully one day, reinstalling doesn't help. But the web version and other video apps work fine.
It's a standard sequence for years now. Docker, rails, ring.. most popular things. Make it work anyhow, optimizing for best user experience, do all the bad things along. It gains popularity, some reasonable people join in making insides better. Then because of popularity it gets some scrutiny and some security holes are getting fixed. Of course, only those which could negatively impact its image.
Sometimes you end up with something quite decent, sometimes there's no one with enough power in the company who can rebuild it properly and it's just trying to make a stone out of sh.t.
If you are trying to do it properly from the start you are in a lost position. You need way more time, more money and better people to end up with something that looks the same for an average user (in most cases, for a few products it may pay off). You iterate more slowly, and you can be copied before you acquired enough user base.
I hate it. Marketing wins over merit everywhere currently.
Many people choose worse reward rather now than better reward later. It's rational in many contexts. The problem is that we are unable to jump out of these local minima.
Just as in coding, when you have a problem and you're stuck, you look for a solution. But it's very hard to learn that there's some better solution to a problem that you've already solved.
I never used Zoom. Why does Zoom need to be “installed”? Isn’t it a web application?
There are many video chat sites, all free for small groups and without the need to trust some random company that wants to execute code on your machine.
Zoom actually has in-browser WebRTC support, but they make such a concerted effort to hide this option. I can only assume they have some kind of incentive for wanting people to install a client on their machine. Tracking, analytics, metadata, who knows?
If when you join a call (without zoom installed) you click the download button, then let the zoom installer start downloading, then press the “I had problems installing” (or some phrasing to that effect) button, finally the join through the browser button appears.
Yes, you have to download the zoom installer executable every time you want to join a call.
It is a web app, there's no reason whatsoever to install the native version aside from the fact that the website uses dark patterns to obscure the existence of the web version.
Honestly, no idea. People keep suggesting Google, so it must work for some people. But every time I try it, different computers, different locations, no matter what, it’s so laggy it’s unusable.
Sorry but it's likely something is messed up with your computer or your internet connection. It works for billions of people, something is off. Google meets is not some inherently not-working piece of software.
Zoom may be kind of scummy, but the tradeoffs they made created a program easy enough for grandparents and CEOs alike to use, and that counts for something. The first time I used Zoom with some family members during the pandemic, they were audibly impressed with how easy it was, and these were people who use FaceTime regularly. The bar is reset now.
This kind of mirrors my experience, all the other apps are wonky or provide a worse experience. For example with Slack, if we (UK) video call with colleagues from the US, it's usually laggy, pixelated and delayed, so we have to use Zoom.
Why not? So that tech companies can collect more data? Because I don't see any reason why browser solutions aren't viable in the age of overpowered smartphones and 5g networks.
What does this law actually look like? What's the legislation? "You're not allowed to link to a native app from a website"? Are you saying iOS universal links - twitter.com links opening in the twitter app - should be illegal?
I don't understand how you can legislate against this without also banning a bunch of legitimate use cases.
We did it with browsers, didn't we? And we rightfully complain when MS is defaulting back to Edge after an update. Sure, LinkedIn, ask me once if I want ro use the app. Accept that I stick to the browser / website and don't make the website experience arbitarily worse on mobile just to nudge me into using your app. Same principle, and honestly a lilegit use case for cookies so that LinkedIn can remember my decision.
I gave you a reason why I think this pattern should be illegal under, e.g., the EU privacy laws. So what's your reason for believing it should be legal to force people to use an app tgat collects all kinda of tracking data about users over an equally fine browser solution?
For the longest time the web client was super glitchy (stuttering) on MacOS. Haven't used Zoom for maybe 2 years now though so things might've changed.
I live somewhere where bilingualism is really strong and we need to offer simultaneous/live audio interpretation in both languages for some important meetings, and for now Zoom is mostly the best option on the market for that, nothing comes really close.
We use Google Meet for everything but those meetings, because Google is still lacking on that aspect. At least they added breakout rooms and polls, but there's still work to do, like preconfiguring polls before the actual meeting takes place, etc.
I remember the first time I used Zoom years ago. I was interviewing with a company and they asked me to join a Zoom call. When I went to the website to install it, it seemed like a poorly branded product and I had this concern I was installing malware. When I opened it for the first time the UI felt mediocre and I was sure at the time that I had compromised my computer.
FYI, it also works on modern Chrome and Firefox (but not Safari last I checked). More CPU intensive and a few missing features compared to the native client - but does work, and even works well.
Skype was absolutely awful for many years. I'm trying to remember all the things that were bad, but I remember that they reinvented the app twice, so that everyone could only talk to people on the version of the app they were on.
They left Linux users in limbo, while Zoom worked for everyone.
They couldn't handle more than a couple of people in a call.
They also had Lync which was rebranded as Skype, so you also had other bad software masquerading as Skype which wouldn't have helped their image.
You couldn't share a meeting URL and have the call in a browser for the longest time.
They only started to try again after Zoom picked up being the default word for video calls.
By Skype getting gradually worse with every release. It is mindboggling how it is WORSE than the Skype I used 15 years ago in every way I can think of.
Until fairly recently, if you opened the PulseAudio volume control app while in a Teams call, the volume slider for the call would be labelled as Skype. That's a name that the sound-producing software hands to PulseAudio, and is reasonable evidence that Microsoft basically ripped the back-end out of Skype and shoved it into Teams and forgot to change what it thought its name was.
At some point a few years back, before Zoom was really big, Skype changed their entire UI and UX into Snapchat or Instagram... it went from an app for communicating to an app for looking at people's updates... or something? I have no idea what its objective became. I doubt Skype knew either.
