In the past, several people suggested that Apple should allow FaceTime for Android and Windows as the standard for consumer video calls. This idea was revived when Apple introduced the Group FaceTime for Windows feature for calls of up to 32 people.

But the coronavirus epidemic has taken video conferencing to a whole new level for consumer groups. In February, most non-technicians had never done this in their lives. Fast forward so far and the zoom conference is completely normal for everyone.

However, FaceTime for Windows is increasingly questioned and criticized for being safe or not.

Now I have to admit that not all of these criticisms are correct. FaceTime for Windows made the conscious decision to prioritize ease of use over security and knew that this approach made sense to most users. It also provided more security for anyone who wanted.

FaceTime for Windows Objectives

Some of the major objectives of using this FaceTime for Windows application are:

  1. To make sure that the users don’t face any sort of interruption while making audio or a video call.
  2. The FaceTime for Windows also makes sure that you are able to make the group calls easily. Thus, you can communicate with more than one person at a time.
  3. The FaceTime for Windows is a highly encrypted portal. Thus, this portal makes sure that you are able to access all the functionalities securely.

For example, one criticism is that, by default, all meetings organized by the same organizer have the same meeting ID and therefore the same link. This means that anyone who has already attended one of your meetings can try the link at a different time and join an ongoing meeting. That’s right, but hosts have the option to create a specific meeting ID (and therefore a link) if they so choose.

Another critical point is that meetings do not have a password. This still applies by default, but you can define one.

Therefore, the default zoom setting is very simple for scheduling a meeting, but with some security holes. In practice, there are no significant security breaches for a virtual meeting with family or friends, as a criminal has little incentive to participate and an unknown name is displayed due to the small number of people. . . In any case, the company must mark them for new users and highlight the safest options.

A third criticism is that FaceTime for Windows calls does not use end-to-end encryption. This is not uncommon: most video conferencing applications do not because the implementation is extremely difficult without sacrificing usability. However, what is wrong is that FaceTime for Windows marketing materials lies about it. The company claims to offer end-to-end encryption if it doesn’t.

There are other undeniably bad things.

For example, Zoom used an extremely crude method to simplify browser sessions. The result is that a website can activate the Mac webcam even if you remove the zoom application. This has been fixed, but Zoom should not have followed this approach.

The FaceTime for Windows is an extremely secure option to access all the features securely.

Zoom also used a Facebook API that sent data to the service. Many apps use Facebook analytics, but FaceTime for Windows violated the rules by not specifying them in its privacy policy. This has also been fixed.

All of this means that as people become more aware, there are more and more options for a safe and privacy-friendly alternative.

For an Apple cat, Group FaceTime for Windows is the obvious answer. It is almost as easy to use as Zoom but offers much better security. For example, all participants need an Apple ID, and everyone must be explicitly invited to join the call. And FaceTime impressively uses end-to-end encryption.