JM
My feedback
23 results found
-
49 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JM
supported this idea
·
-
136 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JM
commented
This is critical to me, too. Using the meeting Lock function is not the same as selective admission of persons from a Waiting Room -- Lock is the sledgehammer solution for access control, and Waiting Room is the surgical scalpel solution.
Further, it's simply unreasonable to expect the Host to be able to:
(1) Check his/her IMs/emails outside Meet for requests to be admitted from legitimate guests who are locked out;
(2) Reply to those persons to advise that the meeting will be Unlocked and that they should attempt to Join again;
(3) Unlock the meeting with such amazingly lucky and precise timing that it is open when those legitimate guests happen to attempt to Join again, but not when any uninvited persons or Kicked Out guests happen to try to do the same, the timing of which will be unknown to the Host; and
(4) Police the collection of newly admitted attendees -- after they've already gained access to the secure meeting -- to ensure that only legitimate guests were admitted and Kick Out any interlopers...all while
(5) Successfully running the meeting he/she called
...all at the same time, without seriously risking compromising the meeting's security -- an impossible burden for any Host that Meet forces upon all Hosts.JM
supported this idea
·
-
82 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JM
commented
The Windows Desktop app is useless to me until it offers app window and browser tab screen-sharing. Given the screen-sharing functionality available on the Web-based, macOS, and Linux Meet apps, launching the Windows app with so much less feels very half-baked.
I do appreciate the ability to manage accompanying audio by browser tab or system. That's helpful.
JM
supported this idea
·
Upvote Hoda's May 16, 2026 comment.