JM
My feedback
23 results found
-
45 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JM
supported this idea
·
-
25 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JM
commented
Given Proton's emphasis on privacy, I can't understand why Meet does not offer a 1:1 direct message meeting chat option. There is, of course, the need for meeting participants to share confidential information on a need-to-know basis in an environment where not everyone present needs to know. Not possible within the Meet platform -- such a communication would have to go by email or a messaging app, which may not be seen in a timely manner, particularly if the recipient of such a message was sharing his/her screen and can't open email privately.
Further, With the tele-work takeover and the normalization of the multi-location single-team, there are many circumstances where co-workers in a meeting with a larger audience need to backchannel basic meeting mechanics and information between and among themselves during the meeting -- eg to jump ahead to backup slide x in order to answer an audience question, to prompt a colleague to correct an error in his/her oral presentation, to inform one's colleagues of one's immediate exit from meeting due to building evacuation -- just like they would do by passing notes and whispering in each other's ears if they were sitting at a conference room table.
JM
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
27 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
28 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
30 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
29 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JM
commented
Agree with all the earlier comments. The Meet add-on alone at USD 7.99/mo is actually more expensive than what I just paid for a year's subscription of Proton Unlimited (on a monthly basis). Granted, the Unlimited subscription was highly discounted, but still -- the fact that a SINGLE Proton product would cost me more per month than ALL Proton's other products combined is obscene...and smacks of a money grab by Proton.
USD 7.99 might not be a lot of money for Proton's business clients, but it is for a lot of the people who subscribe to Proton's services for their private lives, because they can't trust their employers' email, messaging, and other systems. It seems counter to Proton's mission to price a meet subscription for non-business customers in such a way that it pushes us back to the business solutions offered by Big Tech that we're trying to escape.
During COVID lockdowns, everyone realized quickly and acutely how much we needed new and better ways of communicating with our friends, families, colleagues, business partners, governments, and other groups. And, for better or worse, that need focused on simultaneous multi-party videoconferencing, and Zoom became the default platform for many people almost by accident because there weren't many viable alternatives oriented toward the individual consumer. Several years later, personal, public-sector, and private-sector reliance on videoconferencing remains high. In a sense, it has virtually become an indispensable public utility like the land-line telephone was in the 20th century.
Proton, do you really want to price-gouge your individual customers for your brand of a public-utility service when they have flocked to you in droves ever since Covid, committed virtually all their personal data to your care, and have been glad to pay you to keep it safe -- all because they trust you implicitly, and no one else? That doesn't sound like the Proton that was "built by the community, for the community" and that "puts people before profits."
JM
supported this idea
·
-
39 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
42 votesJM
supported this idea
·
-
43 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JM
commented
...or allow Host to set a rule for the meeting that allows all guests, no guests, or only approved guests to screen-share.
JM
supported this idea
·
-
55 votesJM
supported this idea
·
Until recently, I had used Proton Meet almost exclusively for calls among 4-6 roughly equally-engaged participants. A gallery layout displaying all video feeds in the same size worked for each of these groups and made sense to me: everyone was participating, and the groups were small enough that all participants could easily see each other -- and focus on the speaker -- with that layout, without needing to pin anyone.
Last week, however, I used Proton Meet and Zoom for several 1:1 meetings and for a few large group meetings featuring one or two presentation leaders (with the rest of the group as audience, except for Q&A, which was mostly conducted via in-meeting chat). These experiences highlighted the value of being able to pin the other party in 1:1 meetings (and minimize one's own feed to a thumbnail), and to prioritize the presentation leader and his/her slides for all participants. In each meeting, these layouts facilitated greater focus on the meeting's subject.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I acknowledge that meeting practices and dynamics vary widely by management style, company, cultural norms, participant demographics, and other factors. Unsurprisingly, the variation in personal preferences is equally as great. It follows that the optimal meeting video layouts for the various circumstances I have suggested here may not be the best layouts for all meetings and all participants, and that there there may exist more suitable alternatives that I haven't even considered.
Accordingly, I think the best approach for Proton Meet would be to facilitate user choice for each meeting by allowing: (1) the meeting host to prescribe a single video layout for all participants therein; or (2) in the absence of a host-prescribed layout, allowing each meeting participant to choose a video layout for him/herself.
The host or individual participants would be able to choose among a few common layouts, such as: Gallery (grid of equal-size feeds), Speaker (primary grid of user-pinned or host-spotlighted large feeds; secondary grid of remaining small feeds), Presenter (presenter video and screen-share as tandem large feeds; all other video feeds off, except when activated for comment/question).
The host or participant should also be able to select how he/she wishes shared content to be displayed, for example: Share-Only (all participant feeds off), Share-as-Speaker (same as "Speaker," above, but with the shared content in place of pinned or spotlighted feeds), and Share-and-Gallery (50% shared content, 50% Gallery).