With Microsoft’s moves on Skype 4 Business, this is largely coming down to Zoom and Webex going forward. Until we can determine how the switch over to Teams is going for Microsoft. Not that S4B won’t still be a thing for quite awhile, but Microsoft won’t be pushing it as hard or at all and it not being bundled into O365 is a big deal. The Microsoft presence (for new customers) will at the very least be a little muddied as this plays out. Not to mention S4B current customers who are left confused/concerned about this product’s future.
Here’s a look at the Magic Quadrant for Meeting Solutions 2018.
Zoom clustered up with MS and Cisco in upper right of leaders. The article lists the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Zoom’s position is impressive considering the decade or more head start the other two had.
“Now, one way to sum up these meeting solutions would be to consider them video conferencing tools. However, that doesn’t quite hit the nail on the head, and may even discourage those that would benefit from these tools to invest in them. One main reasoning behind this is a lack of popularity and adoption of video conferencing tools. While they have existed for quite some time, not many are quick to jump into a video if it is not absolutely necessary.”
And article goes on to explain how that is changing and will change going forward.
Here’s another look at comparing Zoom to Webex.
For all the article, I found the first sentence most interesting.
“Virtual software is the next big thing in business communication”
Combine that with some of the analysis from Gartner. No, this is not just “video conferencing”. Once you get past that, the thesis takes shape and you see how well Zoom in particular is positioned.
Zoom is the disrupting leader. The other two are at a minimum growing much much slower or maybe even declining.
I first heard of Zoom last December. I was going to be interviewed on YouTube in regards to my real estate investing. The guy doing the interview told me about Zoom. I downloaded it to my tablet and voila.
Easy, least. I set my tablet on top of a cardboard box to get the right angle and we held the interview.
I work as an IT PM for large financial services company. Previously a typical meeting used Webex in conjunction with an audio-conference line, but now I prefer to jump on a video conference line.
We use Cisco Jabber/MOVI. It’s quicker to join a video bridge than an audio bridge, and you can also use it to show your desktop instead of using Webex (which takes forever to start up by the way).
I am not sure whether the video conference audio is better than a pure audio-conference line, or if it’s the fact that I can see lips moving and body language, but whenever I am on an audio-only meeting it feels like I’m back in the stone age. It’s much harder to understand people.
So I think it’s a given that everyone will eventually be using video conferencing.
Also, I believe there’s a certain amount of stickiness to the product as it’s usually integrated with other products like instant messaging. My company has been trying to move staff from Sametime to Jabber messaging, so that everyone is on one audio/video/messaging product, for well over a year now; it seems to have stalled for some reason.
I’m a recently retired educational technologist that specialized in remote training large numbers of people. Up until the last few years, I had used just about every video conferencing package out there.
All are similar in function, the difference is in the number of features. For example, simple multi-user conferencing can be handled in most cases now with just a browser extension but added classroom features like the ability for the instructor to discretely view a student’s screen or capture a student’s work all require a desktop client.
Add in security, encryption, and some government standards, and they become complex, but all are limited by the same bandwidth and security limits.
I’ll admit that I haven’t seen Zoom yet, but they’re entering a field that is already crowded with heavyweights. On top of the basic video conferencing from Skype, there’s also Webex from Cisco, several variations of Go To Meeting (Go to Training, Go to Conference) from LogMeIn, Adobe Connect, Fuze, and a bunch of others.
This isn’t new technology. I had people training LearnLinc sessions in 1998. So unless Zoom can come up with something new and revolutionary that the big guys can’t quickly duplicate, they’re facing a strong headwind.
I’ll admit that I haven’t seen Zoom yet, but they’re entering a field that is already crowded with heavyweights. On top of the basic video conferencing from Skype, there’s also Webex from Cisco, several variations of Go To Meeting (Go to Training, Go to Conference) from LogMeIn, Adobe Connect, Fuze, and a bunch of others.
This isn’t new technology. I had people training LearnLinc sessions in 1998. So unless Zoom can come up with something new and revolutionary that the big guys can’t quickly duplicate, they’re facing a strong headwind.
Hi sunrise, thanks for keeping us sober here. We do tend to get carried away sometimes.
Saul
One of the most important takeaways, however, is that Gartner feels Zoom could still use improvement on its global presence, and does not stand as a strong option for multinational organizations
On the whole, Zoom is better for smaller businesses looking for ease of use and higher video quality where WebEx excels at scale and for those seeking a diverse feature set. However, we wouldn’t recommend one over the other.
Zoom has a 10% market share while webex and logmein have about 65% of the market.
Seems like a very tough market to compete in with entrenched heavyweights and I cannot see the clear advantage that zoom has over competition to continue gaining market share.
But looks like the article is mixing up the market with video conference equipment market
n the third quarter of 2016, Cisco’s revenues grew 6.4% and it controlled 46% of the worldwide video conferencing equipment market. Polycom’s 2.3% growth yielded 21% of the market and Huawei’s 4.6% growth resulted in 12.2% of the market.
I’ll admit that I haven’t seen Zoom yet, but they’re entering a field that is already crowded with heavyweights. On top of the basic video conferencing from Skype, there’s also Webex from Cisco, several variations of Go To Meeting (Go to Training, Go to Conference) from LogMeIn, Adobe Connect, Fuze, and a bunch of others.
First of all Zoom is started by ex-founding member of web-ex and believe in charge of their engineering.
Zoom is fighting bigger competition with Microsoft and Cisco, but look at their revenue growth, that should tell you they are gaining traction.
Webex was the standard remote meeting software in use at the company I worked at when I retired. In that we employees all over the world, it realized quick adoption by virtue of the fact that it supported substantial cuts travel budgets. Remote meetings did present some problems with respect to accommodating people’s schedules in different time zones.
Notice, I used the term “remote meetings” rather than “video conferencing.” Unless Webex has changed since I retired (a distinct possibility) it did not provide video at all. It provided the ability to share desktops and that pretty much summed it up. There were no cameras involved. One had to separately log onto an audio conference call in order to hold an open discussion.
I did not find this cumbersome as I had no experience with any alternative. I was grateful for the tool as I was spared trips to such exciting locations as Wichita, KS, a town in which eating steak is the primary form of entertainment. Or Dallas, TX, noted for its abiding atmosphere of artificiality where even the bars emit a pervasive aroma of in-authenticity. I could go on.
My recollection is that Webex supported our requirements quite well. We quickly became accustomed to not seeing one another’s face during meetings. It didn’t seem to be a problem, in some ways it may have meetings more productive in that no one was trying to “read” body language and the lack of facial expression made saying things by innuendo more difficult.
We used Webex primarily for sharing information among team members. Much less so for management presentations where both the managers and the presenters preferred face-to-face meetings.
I don’t recall inordinate technical difficulties. That may have been a function of it being and enterprise standard where roll out of version upgrades were coordinated by IT. Everyone was running the same version with common configuration and parameter settings. Cisco acquired Webex in 2007. I retired in 2010. Maybe it took them a few years to screw up the product.
What this boils down to for me is a fair degree of skepticism about Zoom, but it’s hard to ignore the numbers. It might be worth taking a small position, but if I decide to get in, I’ll wait at a few months post IPO. I suspect this will be one of those stocks where people pile on in search of a quick buck driving the stock price up only to follow with heavy profit taking. I hope that sounds more like common sense than market timing, but I admit, it’s some of both.
I actually believe ZM is and will be radically underfollowed. Especially at first. I plan to open part of my position day 1. That worked out exceptionally well for TWLO, TTD, MDB, AYX, and many other incredible businesses. I believe Zoom is right up there with those.
For me, the biggest risk would be not investing in Zoom at all. I would regret that…even if it goes down because the numbers are there, I believe in this market opportunity, and from everything I’ve read the Founder is great.
We have some really popular IPOs drawing attention. Lyft, Pintrest, Uber, Air BnB talks, etc.
Zoom is not a product most every day consumers are familiar with so my neighbor Joe who has no idea what real investing is, but wants to make a quick buck off weed stocks, crypto, and the IPOs above likely won’t even know about Zoom.
Small market cap compared to many others which will keep many funds, etc from investing.
Austin, I’m also pretty excited re: ZM. My company (about 17K employees) have used WebEx, GlobalMeet, GoToMeeting, Skype for Biz, Teams, etc., They all are crap. Teams can maybe someday get there if they can make the video portion better. Teams is solid w messaging and documentation store capability. But its video capability is crap. Zoom is one-touch and it just works ---- whether its from a mobile device, laptop, or from a conference room set-up. Thing of beauty. Frankly, I feel that the ease is their moat. Someone mentioned https://appear.in the other day ---- that’s the only one I’ve not tried.
All, do we have a picture of what ZM’s product roadmap is beyond video-conf? For example, the companies Austin mentions ---- TWLO, TTD, MDB, AYX have either all evolved or are evolving past their initial product capability…and in my mind are true companies solving multiple problems for customers. How do we get convinced that ZM is beyond just a product ---- and is a true company solving multiple problems for customers beyond video-conf? Interested to know if we have heard of what their product roadmap beyond video-conf is.
and from everything I’ve read the Founder is great.
It is only 1 tiny piece of the puzzle, but from the little that I have read about the Founder having previously been part of the WebEx team (if I am remembering that right) and branching off and now being in charge at Zoom reminds me of Arista Networks. From the little bit that I have read, it sounds like he very much intends to keep Zoom as a standalone company for quite some time.
That parallel appeals to me.
Further, one line of thinking that I have had in the past regarding the ever-improving nature of VR/augmented reality eventually being so good that some human travel will become unnecessary due to VR/AR allowing you to truly feel like you are present with people (all except for physically being able to touch them), I could see it being highly unwise to underestimate the TAM in this space.
