4 ms·
As long as companies keep paying for it, the signal given is “keep going like this”. CIOs’ fault.
by obert 4y ago
As long as companies keep paying for it, the signal given is “keep going like this”. CIOs’ fault.
- jillesvangurp 4y agoCIOs don't care about user happiness but about cost, compliance, security, and general ass-coverage. MS is really good at ticking those boxes for companies. MS Live is included with a lot of other stuff they also need. So, they sign for a site license and then they get to use outlook, office 365, and all the rest of the stuff that companies need (or think they need). It's a package deal, alternative solutions would be redundant relative to that package. Kudos to Zoom for convincing lots of companies that they need it in addition to that stuff when arguably they really don't. MS has narrowed the feature gap enough that you could do without it. But still, it's fashionable enough that lots of companies pay to use that in addition to MS Live. For most responsible CIOs that's an obvious way to cut cost waiting to happen of course. I am CTO/CIO/CPO at a small startup. We have so far kept MS, Adobe, and Atlassian out of our door. We use Google Docs, Meets, Github, Figma, Asana, and a few other things instead. So our SAAS bills are lowish and we get a lot of value. Perfectly happy with that setup. And Meets is pretty nice to use as it just runs in a browser without insisting on installing an app that contains a browser that runs a webapp.
- obert 4y ago> CIOs don't care about user happiness but about cost, compliance, security, and general ass-coverage. exactly what I meant. And users should complain about their CIOs rationale, when they choose a product ignoring usability, openness, etc