12-07-2020, 12:14 PM
(12-04-2020, 08:52 PM)cah329a Wrote: Zoom is different from JK in one critical way. In Zoom the host is hosting and managing and presenting (or allowing presentations) while everyone else essentially observes. In a JK jam, everyone is actively engaged in playing: it's more of a collaboration than a presentation. That takes more resources than being a passive participant on Zoom. I think we're going to find out that a Gold or Platinum user can start sessions of any length and manage them (just like Zoom), lower-tier users are going to be able to join those sessions but will be limited in the number of hours per month (or per session for basic users). So they'll be able to join a session, but once their time runs out they'll be bumped. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.I am sorry, but this is simply not quite true. Anyone who has a payed member$p with Zoom can make others Co-Hosts, and they can do everything that the Host can do, including managing the session, presenting, sharing screens, invite participants, mute participants, you name it. We do this all the time in education, for instance for guest lectures. This is exactly what I think JK should support.
Also, Zoom just stops the session after 45min if you are not a paying member, but it doesn't give you a tiny monthly allowance, which I think is a ridiculous idea for JamKazam. It took us as many hours to get everything working in the first place.
I would actually become a Platinum user if this kind of hosting was allowed. I think that way JamKazam could really make an impact, especially in teaching, but also in rehearsing situations.
With the current schemes I will only last as long as there isn't another option that works, and I believe there are some like SoundJack which look very promising. My guess is that JamKazam will not survive, unless they allow hosting in the way suggested.