Note that intuitively, it seems like Meet and Zoom have the better model - why limit the number of participants when you don't have to? And in fact a lot of consumers seem to feel this way about it; many people I know use Zoom for everything, from large meetings to chatting with a small number of family members or confidants.
But under the hood, limiting the number of users allows some important technical advantages. Duo claims (in its FAQ) to be end-to-end encrypted. I believe Whatapp claims the same. And it wouldn't surprise me, knowing Apple, if their video chats on Facetime did too. This is possible only with a reasonable limit on the number of participants because of the need to negotiate a bandwidth for each stream that works for all viewers, and each stream needs to be independent, not multiplexed into a single live view.
The proper use of large-scale meeting products is in corporate or paid environments where you have some kind of guarantee that your chats aren't being recorded or sold. (At least unless a three letter agency is involved.) Tools that guarantee end-to-end encryption should be used in small group chats.
Your point about UX is a strong one too. There are a affordances that work better for smaller chats, others for larger ones, and it's helpful to be able to specialize.
> The proper use of large-scale meeting products is in corporate or paid environments where you have some kind of guarantee that your chats aren't being recorded or sold.
In banking/financial services, we want guarantees that all chats are being recorded. In lots of other regulated and government fields too.
> why limit the number of participants when you don't have to
Because beyond UX, there are a ton of technical tradeoffs involved.
In a 2-person call you want to avoid a server if possible, because it adds latency -- so that's a good first reason. Zoom and Meet would never dream of not using a server.
The optimal architecture of a "small group call" is totally different from a "large group call".
But under the hood, limiting the number of users allows some important technical advantages. Duo claims (in its FAQ) to be end-to-end encrypted. I believe Whatapp claims the same. And it wouldn't surprise me, knowing Apple, if their video chats on Facetime did too. This is possible only with a reasonable limit on the number of participants because of the need to negotiate a bandwidth for each stream that works for all viewers, and each stream needs to be independent, not multiplexed into a single live view.
The proper use of large-scale meeting products is in corporate or paid environments where you have some kind of guarantee that your chats aren't being recorded or sold. (At least unless a three letter agency is involved.) Tools that guarantee end-to-end encryption should be used in small group chats.
Your point about UX is a strong one too. There are a affordances that work better for smaller chats, others for larger ones, and it's helpful to be able to specialize.