14 ms·

>You don't need to sign up for Slack because we have Teams, you don't need to signup for Notion because we have Loop Yes? Why should a company pay for Slack,

>You don't need to sign up for Slack because we have Teams, you don't need to signup for Notion because we have Loop Yes? Why should a company pay for Slack, Office 365 and Notion? When you can just pay for one Office 365 licence per user? This also makes sure data is in your tenant and not spread all the fuck over. Say Susie quits. Now all her stuff is in Slack, Notion, Office 365 and a Google account. VS it being all in one Office 365 account under one admin panel.

ProAm 4y ago
The only benefit is its a little cheaper and less contracts to maintain but Teams so significantly inferior to Slack/Zoom. The only reason we continue to use it is because of cost savings.
- AraceliHarker 4y ago
  Exactly this. GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34773860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34773860
- dash2 4y ago
  Cost is one of the attributes of a product.
- ramesh31 4y ago
  >The only benefit is its a little cheaper and less contracts to maintain but Teams so significantly inferior to Slack/Zoom. It's a lot cheaper. Slack contracts can easily run into the millions per year for a large org, versus... free.
  - kyawzazaw 4y ago
    Companies are ending lots of vendor licenses these days to cut costs. So it makes sense. I am not sure what people uses Slack for. But Teams is perfectly adequate in my opinion. Not a good idea to have lots of Knowledge and process in a chat app anyway.
- kaba0 4y ago
  All three are just bad as hell.
- CoolCold 4y ago
  I have seen on some other discussion related to Teams, someone mentioned that he/she has seen how "real"/"normal" users tend to use Teams and it was waaay more different than he/she could imagine as techie. So may be it has some features valuable for other which Slack lacks.
pwinnski 4y ago
Right, so instead of competing on quality, the established player can put out a vastly inferior product that ticks enough checkboxes and rely on the cost savings and easy of bundling to gain market share, pushing the superior competitor who actually delivers a quality product out. From a game theory perspective, I get why companies do this. The level of management signing these POs don't rely on Notion or Slack the way the people who work for them do. But this unquestionably makes everything worse. It eliminates real competition on merits and quality, replacing it with market leverage. It's anti-competitive. And Microsoft knows all about being anticompetitive.
- zokier 4y ago
  Note that this "one stop shop" is very much also key part of AWS playbook, and to a lesser degree also Google. None of the big players do best-of-breed besides rare exceptions
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Absolutely! I don't know of any company offering bundles in which every product is consider the best in its class, and even bundles that start with credible claims seem to quickly fall behind in quality.
- eamq 4y ago
  Sometimes we get so focused on the details that we lose sight of the big picture. It's not only easier to manage from an admin standpoint, but also more satisfying for the user. People like to have integration in their products, even if they are not perfect as standalone tools.

ProAm 4y ago

The only benefit is its a little cheaper and less contracts to maintain but Teams so significantly inferior to Slack/Zoom. The only reason we continue to use it is because of cost savings.

AraceliHarker 4y ago
Exactly this. GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34773860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34773860
dash2 4y ago
Cost is one of the attributes of a product.
ramesh31 4y ago
>The only benefit is its a little cheaper and less contracts to maintain but Teams so significantly inferior to Slack/Zoom. It's a lot cheaper. Slack contracts can easily run into the millions per year for a large org, versus... free.
- kyawzazaw 4y ago
  Companies are ending lots of vendor licenses these days to cut costs. So it makes sense. I am not sure what people uses Slack for. But Teams is perfectly adequate in my opinion. Not a good idea to have lots of Knowledge and process in a chat app anyway.
kaba0 4y ago
All three are just bad as hell.
CoolCold 4y ago
I have seen on some other discussion related to Teams, someone mentioned that he/she has seen how "real"/"normal" users tend to use Teams and it was waaay more different than he/she could imagine as techie. So may be it has some features valuable for other which Slack lacks.

pwinnski 4y ago

Right, so instead of competing on quality, the established player can put out a vastly inferior product that ticks enough checkboxes and rely on the cost savings and easy of bundling to gain market share, pushing the superior competitor who actually delivers a quality product out. From a game theory perspective, I get why companies do this. The level of management signing these POs don't rely on Notion or Slack the way the people who work for them do. But this unquestionably makes everything worse. It eliminates real competition on merits and quality, replacing it with market leverage. It's anti-competitive. And Microsoft knows all about being anticompetitive.

zokier 4y ago
Note that this "one stop shop" is very much also key part of AWS playbook, and to a lesser degree also Google. None of the big players do best-of-breed besides rare exceptions
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Absolutely! I don't know of any company offering bundles in which every product is consider the best in its class, and even bundles that start with credible claims seem to quickly fall behind in quality.
eamq 4y ago
Sometimes we get so focused on the details that we lose sight of the big picture. It's not only easier to manage from an admin standpoint, but also more satisfying for the user. People like to have integration in their products, even if they are not perfect as standalone tools.