4 ms·

Yet, I’d say it’s not the teams Speaking of Teams, there is something I don't really understand, which is that we have just experienced nearly a full year of i

Yet, I’d say it’s not the teams Speaking of Teams, there is something I don't really understand, which is that we have just experienced nearly a full year of intense competition between Teams, Webex, Zoom, Bluejeans, Skype and all the rest. All of those products should be AMAZING by now. But actually most of them are still clunky as hell, and Teams itself is probably the worst of them, it's still as slow as it was a year ago, still unreliable and still missing (trivial) features that people actually want, like the ability to block/ignore certain contacts. And it can't be - if anyone at Microsoft actually uses it themselves - that they don't know how bad it is. But they seem to be doing absolutely nothing about it.

Nextgrid 6y ago
Microsoft Teams isn't designed to compete on technical merit, it's designed to appeal to bean-counters who have either never used anything better, or have not used and will not use the software at all, thus slowness isn't an issue because the people it would affect (the end-users) have no say in the matter. No opinion on Bluejeans nor Webex but I assume it could be the same as above. Zoom isn't actually that bad. UX-wise it has some issues but speed-wise it performs better than everything else I've tried (probably helps that it has a native app instead of being browser-based or Electron garbage). Skype is a consumer product and is left to stagnate more or less. Most likely, they don't see enough profit potential in it to make it actually better (which would involve throwing away the Electron crap and rebuilding a - or dusting off the old - native app).
- bombcar 6y ago
  Zoom is frighteningly above all the rest; the speed is there, the background replacement is miles ahead of Bluejeans - if they weren't worth $infinity I'd expect Microsoft to buy them and shove it into Teams somehow.
- BlargMcLarg 6y ago
  > Microsoft Teams isn't designed to compete on technical merit, it's designed to appeal to bean-counters who have either never used anything better, or have not used and will not use the software at all, thus slowness isn't an issue because the people it would affect (the end-users) have no say in the matter. Quoting for emphasis. It's incredibly telling most people who started WFH since spring 2020, they are nowhere near as adapted or sensitive to this stuff as people who used similar commercial apps with a different target audience (gamers) on the regular. Teams feels like two steps forward, one step back compared to Skype. It looks more streamlined, business-y and has cool integrations, but so many design choices irk me and the performance is meh.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    It's not even a 2020 thing. For most people in the environments where Teams is rolled out, the standard used to be either e-mail (using bloated clients like Outlook) or Skype for Business (formerly Microsoft Office Lync). The question as to why those previous options can't be as good as the consumer-grade alternatives (such as the social networks they're often using) has already been settled long ago and they've accepted whatever BS answer they've been given. Compared to what they used previously, Teams is indeed an upgrade (albeit small) and they are unlikely to question its quality as they've already accepted that the tools they use in their enterprise are terrible compared to consumer-grade alternatives they use outside of the enterprise. The real eye-opener for them would be to try Slack, where they would suddenly realize that office chat doesn't have to suck, though I have to say Slack is doing a great job over the last couple years at catching up to Teams when it comes to terribleness.
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  > designed to appeal to bean-counters who ... will not use the software at all Easy conspiracy theory to postulate, but with WFH "bean counters" use video conferencing software just as much as devs - indeed probably far more intensely.
jorams 6y ago
Having used Teams, Zoom, Skype, Google Meet and Jitsi, I'm having a very hard time understanding why people go through the pain of Teams, Zoom or Skype. Jitsi and Google Meet don't employ any dark patterns, they are fast, they are reliable, they are easy to use. (I do use them only in Chromium.) Zoom desperately wants me to download their client, even going so far as to require multiple failed attempts before showing the button to join using the browser. Then it wants me to complete a CAPTCHA before letting me join. If I do use the client it opens several separate windows and asks if I want to join using desktop audio. (Of course I do, and if you still want to ask please keep it in the main window.)

Nextgrid 6y ago

Microsoft Teams isn't designed to compete on technical merit, it's designed to appeal to bean-counters who have either never used anything better, or have not used and will not use the software at all, thus slowness isn't an issue because the people it would affect (the end-users) have no say in the matter. No opinion on Bluejeans nor Webex but I assume it could be the same as above. Zoom isn't actually that bad. UX-wise it has some issues but speed-wise it performs better than everything else I've tried (probably helps that it has a native app instead of being browser-based or Electron garbage). Skype is a consumer product and is left to stagnate more or less. Most likely, they don't see enough profit potential in it to make it actually better (which would involve throwing away the Electron crap and rebuilding a - or dusting off the old - native app).

bombcar 6y ago
Zoom is frighteningly above all the rest; the speed is there, the background replacement is miles ahead of Bluejeans - if they weren't worth $infinity I'd expect Microsoft to buy them and shove it into Teams somehow.
BlargMcLarg 6y ago
> Microsoft Teams isn't designed to compete on technical merit, it's designed to appeal to bean-counters who have either never used anything better, or have not used and will not use the software at all, thus slowness isn't an issue because the people it would affect (the end-users) have no say in the matter. Quoting for emphasis. It's incredibly telling most people who started WFH since spring 2020, they are nowhere near as adapted or sensitive to this stuff as people who used similar commercial apps with a different target audience (gamers) on the regular. Teams feels like two steps forward, one step back compared to Skype. It looks more streamlined, business-y and has cool integrations, but so many design choices irk me and the performance is meh.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  It's not even a 2020 thing. For most people in the environments where Teams is rolled out, the standard used to be either e-mail (using bloated clients like Outlook) or Skype for Business (formerly Microsoft Office Lync). The question as to why those previous options can't be as good as the consumer-grade alternatives (such as the social networks they're often using) has already been settled long ago and they've accepted whatever BS answer they've been given. Compared to what they used previously, Teams is indeed an upgrade (albeit small) and they are unlikely to question its quality as they've already accepted that the tools they use in their enterprise are terrible compared to consumer-grade alternatives they use outside of the enterprise. The real eye-opener for them would be to try Slack, where they would suddenly realize that office chat doesn't have to suck, though I have to say Slack is doing a great job over the last couple years at catching up to Teams when it comes to terribleness.
MagnumOpus 6y ago
> designed to appeal to bean-counters who ... will not use the software at all Easy conspiracy theory to postulate, but with WFH "bean counters" use video conferencing software just as much as devs - indeed probably far more intensely.

jorams 6y ago

Having used Teams, Zoom, Skype, Google Meet and Jitsi, I'm having a very hard time understanding why people go through the pain of Teams, Zoom or Skype. Jitsi and Google Meet don't employ any dark patterns, they are fast, they are reliable, they are easy to use. (I do use them only in Chromium.) Zoom desperately wants me to download their client, even going so far as to require multiple failed attempts before showing the button to join using the browser. Then it wants me to complete a CAPTCHA before letting me join. If I do use the client it opens several separate windows and asks if I want to join using desktop audio. (Of course I do, and if you still want to ask please keep it in the main window.)