Zoom has been experiencing a lot of use as well as a lot of scrutiny lately. One major draw, in my opinion, is that it supports interoperability with standards-based (SIP/H.323) software and equipment. Other platforms, such as the recently oft-mentioned Jitsi, are WebRTC only; interop means using their libraries in the browser. MS Teams, Facetime, Skype, FB Messenger video, Google's products--all are walled. What video platforms are interoperable?
Hi, unfortunately none. Webrtc is just another islands of silos. Which is quite unfortunate, I would expect webrtc to become like email. Imagine if gmail could communicate only with other gmail mails. That's what the current situation with webrtc-based video/voice platforms, and it feels so wrong.<p>However, not everything is as bad as it seams. First, SIP has already solved that problem, even for regular telephone numbers, let alone domain-based identifiers (like alice@example.com). Specifically RFC8224 solves that (which is part of a larger group of RFCs, starting with rfc7340). Also, WebRTC Security Architecture draft RFC (<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-20" rel="nofollow">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-...</a>) driven by Eric Rescorla is also suggesting a different, yet interoperable architecture for Webrtc (and regular SIP/Voip over gateways I guess) which even involves Identity Providers (like Facebook connect, Google, you name it), in a platform-agnostic way. When it comes to RFCs Erik is top notch on writing them, however getting them approved is a different story and probably it's out of Erik's powers. This draft, has been draft more than 8 years now..<p>Google, by owning chromimum and driving the main Webrtc force, has the final saying.