> What makes it bad I mean aside from technology choices, It's just very bad at video calls. I don't want an "artistic" layout of people that is constantly sw

> What makes it bad I mean aside from technology choices, It's just very bad at video calls. I don't want an "artistic" layout of people that is constantly switching around, or comedy "sitting in a theatre" options. If someone doesn't have video on it'll confusingly highlight some random other participant while they are talking, and when nobody is talking it'll choose a random person with the microphone on and boost whatever background noise (or typing) it can up until it matches speaking volume. Despite randomly boosting silence, it'll aggressively gate anyone talking, with an obvious fade-up at the start of their sentence and if you are lucky, aggressively cut off the end of their sentence. If you aren't so lucky, it'll do this in every pause between words. Add to that, random disconnects, chat randomly not working, finding it hard to actually get a list of participants, and that it apparently wants to be slack but makes it hard for people to work out how to actually re-use a channel for the next meeting. But of course it gets bundled in with all the other office stuff the company purchases; making it the "default" that you have to fight against using. We were only saved against moving to Teams for _all_ our telephony by the fact that it's linux support is really, really bad and that's what all our engineers use.