6 ms·
As a casual Teams user I can say it's crap software, I don't understand why so many companies choose to use it.
by fbn79 5y ago
As a casual Teams user I can say it's crap software, I don't understand why so many companies choose to use it.
- qsort 5y agoAs far as Europe is concerned, it's a cheap way to check ridiculous GDPR compliance boxes. I'm not convinced it's any more secure than literally any other instant messenger around, but you can rest assured Microsoft has their papers in order. Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft: chapter N+1.
- input_sh 5y agoYou don't buy it separately, but if you have Office 365 already, it's "free". If you're already paying them money, it's just there and is somewhat integrated with the rest of the apps, but I doubt there's a lot of orgs out there purchasing Office 365 specifically because of Teams.
- sofixa 5y agoBecause it comes bundled with Office 365 which they pay for, so it's "free". According to Slack, that's a company unfairly exploiting their monopoly ( on business productivity tools) and i agree.
- RNCTX 5y agoSlack is just IRC in a javascript client. If they bothered to offer more than that they might be a competitor, but they didn't so they're not.
- dzhiurgis 5y agoI've never used Teams - what does it do that Slack is missing. p.s. IMHO Slack integrations is the worst thing ever - usually abused to death and never remotely useful.
- denysvitali 5y agoConsumes CPU and GPU which in turn let you get a new laptop in your company
- dbbk 5y agoYou're clearly not familiar with the feature set of Slack.
- igetspam 5y agoIt's not. It actually used to be but they dropped the IRC back end around 2013 or 2014. Now it's just a noise generator with bots, emojis and forceful feature creep.
- rawbot 5y agoI don't agree with the monopoly notion. But Teams still sucks so much. Slacks can be really expensive for a small or medium sized company though.
- qwerty456127 5y ago> Because it comes bundled with Office 365 which they pay for, so it's "free" There is an official deb package for Ubuntu. I installed it without paying for Office 365. Never actually used it so far though. Will it ask me to pay when I try to?
- igetspam 5y agoIf that was the case, more companies would use Google chat but I've yet to find a single one that does. I know multiple orgs that made a conscious decision to use teams though. There are lots of people who use and enjoy Microsoft products.
- mindwok 5y agoMost only use it because they're already paying for Office 365 and it costs no extra.
- throwaway744678 5y agoThat, and the fact that you don't need to manage yet another account for your users (EDIT: as a system admin)
- igetspam 5y agoYou can pay Okta to do that for you. If my org wasn't on the brink of collapse, that's what we'd do. Sadly, I had to cancel the negotiations because we're in a death spiral of incompetent leadership.
- lucumo 5y agoNot just the license costs, but also the license itself. The Office license is a known quantity, whereas alternatives would require a new license review. Especially important for companies that are worried about their data, for competitive or legal reasons.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- laumars 5y agoCoincidentally only yesterday I got into an argument with a clueless manager about Teams being shitty. Man do I hate that guy. He is a thick as dogshit and about as capable at making a decision as one too. 5 minutes before that Teams conversation I had to explain the difference between a satellite and a ground station. Man is that guy stupid.
- mcny 5y agoThat or people who have had to deal with worse things such as the old IBM Lotus Mail have a higher threshold of pain. I remember telling myself if I ever get back on exchange I won't complain too much anymore.
- laumars 5y agoI’d love it if he were that experienced. Then he might actually be good for something :D
- wallaBBB 5y agoExactly what I was thinking while scrolling through comments - These people have not used IBM tools
- laumars 5y agoI’ve used worse tools. I’ve also used better tools. I’ve had a pretty long career in IT and in that time I’ve learned that comparing ones tooling (or even just software in general) against the worst in the industry only leads one to repeated settle for terrible. What we should be doing is striving to do better. And in fact those who do say “fuck this shit, we can do better” are those more likely to disrupt their specific fields. So no, I don’t buy that people who’ve used worse are more likely to put up. It’s jaded people who have lost interest in technology who are the ones who settle. The rest of us keep on pushing for something better.
- rocqua 5y agoIts poorly written software that is riddled with bugs. Its also the best new piece of big software out there. In the days before teams, remote working together in an entire company was hell. Either you were on skype for business, or each team had their own thing that was different and not official. With teams, everyone is on there. The other microsoft things are integrated, not seamlessly because of bugs, but easily good enough for most things. The chat is available and used, and a nice alternative to e-mail for smaller things. Teams works well enough for most people, and is very easy to get started with. So most people actually use it, and you get a network effect.
- tester34 5y agoDiscord > rest of the market
- rPlayer6554 5y agoFunctionally yes, but they don't have the features needed for business clientele. Even their payment scheme is very unorthodox.
- rocqua 5y agoThere is no way the company I work at could switch to discord. Besides licensing, there is: - account setup - sharepoint integration - 'gamer' reputation - (I think) no on-prem solution to keep things off external servers - ease of sending an outlook invite (from native outlook) that immediately comes with a video meeting link. Teams is a pile of bad software development practices. But it has the correct features to actually be adopted by enterprise. Sadly a large part of those features come from microsoft lock-in and are very hard for competitors to match.
- solarkraft 5y agoI completely agree. What my employer had before introducing Teams was worse. I was relieved when its calendar integration allowed me to skip using the pile of shit Outlook is (on Windows; web app, iOS app and new macOS app are relatively fine!). What I found quite notable about Teams is that for all its flaws and issues, the core functionality is very, very solid! Calls never drop, noise suppression is quite good, it’s slow but rarely freezes/crashes etc. They know very well what would actually disqualify them with people who decide over its usage. They must have some (in this area very good) project management philosophy the other teams don’t have, as I haven’t seen such a focus on core functionality in any other Microsoft product - bugs in other apps vary randomly in severity, often enough losing you a lot of time or data.
- xxs 5y ago>it's crap software That's a massive understatement. I'd go as far and say that even if people would try to design a worse chat (and calls) application they'd fail spectacularly.
- larschdk 5y agoLync/Skype for Business was way worse than teams.
- xxs 5y agoI don't know about that. The thing (lync) at least could scroll.
- skocznymroczny 5y agoWe happily switched from Lync to Microsoft Teams. With Lync it was common to have dropped messages. When messaging between Macs and Windows it was especially bad.
- goalieca 5y agoIt could not effectively save chat logs. The thing ate up megabytes of xml for hello world.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago> I don't understand why so many companies choose to use it. Because it's a) "free" and b) comes with the right enterprise security/isolation features by default. (For example, there's really no such thing as a "corporate Telegram account".)
- skocznymroczny 5y agoBecause it's better than Lync, so it was an easy and obvious transition.
- senectus1 5y agobecause it comes with the rest of the suite and it is LOADS better than Skype For Business.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]