[jancsika]

> How could they guarantee end-to-end if not all gadgets support encryption?!

That question could be similarly applied to any company that has made an outlandish claim. And it would not change the fact that one could create a set of companies known to have made outlandish claims.

Zoom was clearly part of that set. They are now removing themselves from that set by admitting that marketing used a novel definition of a term which none of their programmers would have ever signed off on.

If you have a citation for a FAX machine company misapplying the phrase "end-to-end encryption" to their product during the coronavirus outbreak (or any other time for that matter) I'd be interested to see it.

Edit: clarification

[angry_octet]

It doesn't seem a stretch goal to make it clear to organisers and participants that joining encryption-incapable clients downgrades the confidentiality of the meeting.

Basically Zoom is just using sophistry to avoid being straight forward about limitations, which reinforces my poor opinion of them.