Promising at First, But Uberconference's Inability to Record Screensharing Forced Us to Abandon It
TJ Ruff | TrustRadius Reviewer
June 12, 2017

Promising at First, But Uberconference's Inability to Record Screensharing Forced Us to Abandon It

Score 2 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source

Overall Satisfaction with UberConference

Uberconference was a promising web conference solution that we began using in early 2016, but that we were ultimately forced to abandon last month (May 2017) due its lack of common features (primarily the inability to record video) and issues with reliability and call quality - none of which seemed to improve in the 14 months that we used the solution. We first heard about Uberconference in early 2016, and quickly decided to go with it as it solved a few of our key problems at the time (we were previously using Join.me), including being able to lock meetings, provide more international phone numbers, and not require a download of any software in order to join a meeting. We were primarily looking for a web meeting/conferencing solution for our sales team, but our CEO and customer success team also had the need to communicate with customers and other external groups.

Truthfully, we wanted Uberconference to succeed in our organization as we loved the light footprint - the fact that it required no download - and its smooth UI, but our frustration continued to increase as the company continued to not release new features, but instead increased the price.
  • Light Footprint - most appealing to us about Uberconference was that it did not require any users/participants/attendees to download anything. It's a very refreshing approach honestly, and opened the door at some organizations where downloads weren't allowed. Just more convenient for our customers and prospects.
  • Great UI - Uberconference also had a simple and clean UI, and those we met with would often remark on that fact. There was only one UI snag that we would run into where occasionally (not often) weren't aware that they needed to join the audio one way or another.
  • Inexpensive - when we first started Uberconference was the least expensive and also offered month-to-month subscriptions.
  • Inability to Record Video (Screen Sharing) - a very common use case is recording a web meeting / screen share for review later - be it for training, to share with prospects and customers, etc. - but Uberconference was unable to deliver this functionality in the nearly 14 months that we used it. They only offered recordings exclusively of the audio. It became increasingly frustrating for us and those we worked with and talked to to be unable to deliver recordings of the screensharing, and ultimately became the primary reason we selected Zoom over Uberconference. To boot, along the way I was told by different customer service reps that they weren't aware if adding that functionality was even on the roadmap.
  • Problems with Call Quality - we began the relationship with Uberconference being aware of their immaturity and expected to see differences in reliability and call quality compared to larger vendors, and we were right. The problem again was that there didn't seem to be an improvement; several users in our company felt that reliability got worse over time, but we have no official measure to support that.
  • Lack of Product Progress - in our entire time with Uberconference, they never debuted a substantial new feature. They rearranged their UI, they changed their billing structure (added a "business" plan), and they increased the fees - but we never got ANY additional features that we were hoping for, causing us to lose trust that they'd ultimately deliver ANY of our product requests.
  • Uberconference DID allow us to connect to global prospects and customers less expensively than before
  • Uberconference did NOT allow us to meet many needs of those we talked to that required recordings or a record of what we discussed/showed.
  • Uberconference's lack of reliability (calls dropping, poor call quality) ultimately made us question if it would reflect negatively on our OWN brand.
Uberconference was the least expensive of all the options we looked at and tested which is why we initially decided to look at them, and then we fell in love with the light footprint (not requiring ANY downloads) and simple UI.

That being said, the lack of key features (especially the ability to record video) caused us to grow disenchanted with Uberconference over time, and the lack or reliability and call quality consistently caused us pain points -- we would have stuck with Uberconference had they shown signs of making changes and delivering solutions, but we didn't see many signs of life in the 14 months we used it, so we choose another solution (Zoom). Now, I'd say that Uberconference is the bottom of the pack, and I've personally used 4 vendors in the market and reviewed/testing a few more on top of that.
Uberconference does offer a very light footprint, and might be a decent backup option when things occasionally go wrong with any of the other web conference solutions; it is easy to access and get into, doesn't require a download, and has a free option. Also, some may be okay without video recording... for my sales team, that was a critical feature though.

That being said, due to its inability to record a screen share and the lack of reliability/call quality, I would only advocate this as a light weight backup; I would not recommend Uberconference as your workhorse web conferencing solution.