10 ms·

The bad thing: Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. The product is an incredible horror show, all competition easily crushed Teams. Th

The bad thing: Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. The product is an incredible horror show, all competition easily crushed Teams. They are smart and counted on lazy admins. How are you going to compensate competitors? The problem is that over and over again, companies like MS have already accounted for the fine in their planning. If we want to end this practice, regulators need to deal a crippling blow to MS. Forbid for the next 15 years to provide any solution in the realm of messaging. Hand out a fine so high that it breaks the company and will lead to executives being sued by shareholders.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>The bad thing: Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. Neither would have Chrome to be fair. I remember being a PC user in the late '00s and Chrome ads and downloads links where absolutely everywhere. On Google, on Youtube, on GMail, on any kind of SW installer for Windows would come with a pre-ticked checkbox that would shove Chrome down your throat and then also set itself as the default browser on your system, like ad/-spyware. Naughty-naughty. It was impossible to escape Chrome not getting on your Windows machine back then, it was like a disease. Sure, it was also hip and cool back then, like all brand new products launched by Google back then that generated hype and curiosity getting people to talk about it and recommend it further, but it wouldn't have reached such insane popularity on pure merit and word of mouth alone.
- crgwbr 3y ago
  But also when Chrome first came out, it was legitimately better than the competitors. FF at the time was horribly slow. Teams was never better than Slack.
  - nerdix 3y ago
    Exactly. It's been a while and so a lot people either don't remember or were too young to really remember. I was a Firefox user at the time (was using it when it was Firebird). People were already starting to shift away from IE towards Firefox at the time. A sequence of events where a person's computer was infect with malware, they asked a computer savvy friend for help, the friend "fixed" it, installed Firefox and told them to stop using IE is how most people switched browsers in those days. But Firefox was a slog and Chrome was a breath of fresh air when it was first released. So the sequence was tweaked to "install Chrome and tell you to stop using IE". Chrome became what it is because Microsoft had tried to neuter the internet because they saw the web app potential and understood that it could undermine Windows market share. And when they realized that there was no stopping the internet, they spent several years incompetently trying to improve IE (and eventually Edge) before eventually going the "can't beat em, join em" route.
  - exceptione 3y ago
    Chrome was faster and optimized for google services indeed. However, Google was smart enough to know that being superior doesn't count. Firefox was not horribly slow, the leap from firefox over IE was massive. Chrome over firefox wasn't quite the same leap. The average user has been pushed aggressively, they weren't going to do research on web browsers when they even didn't know what a web browser is. Google knew that.
    - actualwitch 3y ago
      Your pink glasses are showing. For the longest time before quantum firefox was generally very slow and straight up locking ui thread when it feels like it.
    - misnome 3y ago
      When a tab crashed or got heavy usage on Firefox, the whole browser locked up. Chrome didn’t. It was noticeably faster and more reliable. Switching browsers isn’t something that people generally do lightly. You lose them, you lose them for a decade+. That and Mozilla behaviour hasn’t been great over the past several years; like, forced advertising extensions, crypto, more advertising to turn off on a fresh install than _google_… Manifest v3 will probably be the straw that forces me to switch back again, but reluctantly.
- nerdix 3y ago
  How so? People with an already functioning browser that ships with their OS have to make a conscious decision to download and install Chrome. Most people would not do that if the default browser of their OS was serviceable. Chrome gained traction because IE was really, really bad. Now it has mindshare and you might could argue that Google maintains this mindshare with malpractice.
  - warning26 3y ago
    Yeah, GP is forgetting what the browser landscape looked like in 2008. IE was awful, and Firefox was…perfectly cromulent. Chrome was so much better than any of the competition.
    - exceptione 3y ago
      Average joe did not do research. Forget it. - They found the internet had gotten a new icon and had no idea how it got there. (bundling with popular software) - They were instructed by google. That is how chrome came to top. See other comments for more context.
      - warning26 3y ago
        I mean, what would you expect? The fact is, browsers aren't a product, they're a platform feature. Users have zero incentive to ever switch from whatever their OS came bundled with, unless you make a massive advertising push. The fact that Google managed to get people to switch to a non-platform browser at all is a shocking achievement.
        olyjohn 3y ago
        Done by tricking people, and sneakily bundling itself with everything. Sleezey, scumbag achievement.
        warning26 3y ago
        I agree that some of their tactics were questionable, but they were up against IE, and Microsoft's bundling of it. Would you rather everyone still be using IE? Because that's exactly what would have happened otherwise.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  What? Chrome was so far ahead of everyone else, it wasn’t even funny. I remember telling everyone I knew to use Chrome instead of whatever they used because it was so much better.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > but it wouldn't have reached such insane popularity on pure merit and word of mouth alone. It was just soooo much better than the competition. I mean, Firefox was better than IE6, but that was not a high bar to pass in the first place. The thing that won over developers IMO was the developer tools: Firebug was slow as molasses and an utter memory hog. And that didn't change for many years - but by the time Firefox caught up, it was too late.
  - pjerem 3y ago
    You are exaggerating here. While there was for sure a long period of time where Chrome was significantly faster than Firefox, there was never a time where Firefox was particularly bad. Firefox always oscillated between "really good" and "totally ok". I’ll agree with you that Chrome really changed the web development experience with incredible tooling compared to what you could get back then but this had no impact on most users experience. I totally remember Chrome being the fastest/snappiest browser, especially the first versions but Firefox has never been slow.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > I’ll agree with you that Chrome really changed the web development experience with incredible tooling compared to what you could get back then but this had no impact on most users experience. Yes, but guess what the developers started pushing onto their friends who asked for a browser? The one they were personally using. Word-of-mouth is insanely powerful and FF alienated way too many of the key people.
- sneak 3y ago
  Ads and download promotions are not bundling and it is an error to conflate them. Aggressive marketing is not malpractice.
- rejectfinite 3y ago
  Chrome was better and faster than Firefox when it came out...
- slibhb 3y ago
  No. Chrome was much faster than Firefox when it came out, which was in turn much faster than IE.
mschuster91 3y ago
> The bad thing: Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. The product is an incredible horror show, all competition easily crushed Teams. They are smart and counted on lazy admins. Huh what? IME, it's many MANY miles better in user experience than Cisco Webex and Skype for Business, these were absolute clusterfucks, unlike Zoom it doesn't do very weird hacks in the installer that led to security issues [1], and unlike Slack it has absolutely zero problems scaling to hundreds-of-users videocalls. Haven't experienced using landline telephony gateways with it yet, but I'll be glad to get rid of Cisco Jabber as well. Sorry to say it but Cisco's stuff is stuck many years in the past, their focus was on insanely expensive telephony systems and fancy conference room setups for too long. If there's one company that deserves disruption, it's them. The point that competitors can rightfully complain about is the seamless integration with the rest of Office 365 products (create/provision Teams meetings from Outlook directly, and streaming Powerpoint presentations directly to clients as files instead of screengrabbing)... but hey, again, the UX is so much better. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/16/users-of-zoom-on-macs-told-to-update-app-as-company-issues-security-fix https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/16/users-of-...
- heyoni 3y ago
  Huh what? Doesn’t do any weird hacks? Where do I even start…ok try and turn off the updater on macOS using the systemctl command…all that does is prevent the auto updater from running…what happens after that is Teams will crash every 5 minutes after launching. You want more weird privacy breaking dark patterns? Try initiating a Teams call from your phone without giving it access to your local network. You can’t. If I, the user, decide I’d rather not allow Teams to nmap my local network, or decide there aren’t any conferencing devices, Microsoft doesn’t care. Expose your local network or you can’t make any calls to anyone. And you want to talk about user experience…if you go afk, you stop receiving all new messages…that is until you move your mouse again. Dark mode can’t be synced to the system on Mac. Native notifications weren’t a thing on Mac until like a year ago. Performance is horrid. Click anything, change channels, press any button and you’re waiting hundreds of milliseconds if not seconds! The only cure for that is using a souped up M1/2 processor. The list goes on. Teams might be better than webex or Skype but that bar is loooooooow.
ekianjo 3y ago
> The product is an incredible horror show, all competition easily crushed Teams. Yes, except that it has a killer feature: absolute integration with office365. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to you, but for companies that is a very big factor.
- nohankyou 3y ago
  Correct the collaboration and integrations are far better. Our collaboration on documents has improved heavily just by Office365 alone, the Teams integrations to documents and dashboards makes for awesome project-based channels. Slack didn't do anything but cause distraction and people responding with terrible custom emojis (a feature I will never miss).
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  Anecdotally, when I get calendar events for random conference services, I'll get a join button in the event which sends me to that service. Ditto for Teams invites from my organization. But teams invites from other organizations don't have the join button, neither in Outlook nor in Teams itself. I have to open the event and click the link. If I do it in Teams, I'll have to click the expand button to see the link. I don't have any conferencing app installed aside from Teams. I join the others in the browser.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. Maybe so but I think Slack is still hot garbage.
zo1 3y ago
Where is this hate coming from? Teams is amazing, and I much prefer it to things like slack for company comms, even more so for its integration with Outlook and AD. MS is doing an amazing job and they deserve to be rewarded for this amazing product, not punished because you guys want competition and weirdly like SASS products that promote a fragmented ecosystem. And I say this as someone that runs Linux at home and doesn't touch MS dev tooling or languages. Including VS code.
- madiele 3y ago
  The chat experience is horrible on team, read recepit work half of the time, notifications are super weird in how they get handled, reactions cound as a notification separated from the chat, and so on...
elforce002 3y ago
100% agree with your take. It's long overdue. Same goes to Facebook and Amazon. There are much to be done on that front. Divest Facebook into different entities (ig, WhatsApp, Facebook, Oculus), Amazon (AWS, marketplace, Twitch, whole foods, etc...), Microsoft (azure, office, teams, etc..). This will foster competition and fairness. They have too much power now.
pwthornton 3y ago
As a piece of video conferencing tech, I find it to be one of the best. I think it is the best for team calls. A few are better for really large all hands. But I find Teams much better than Google Meet, Webex, Zoom, and many of the other usual competitors. It's stable, the video and audio quality is good, it has very good virtual background support that works well, it can easily record calls, etc. What Teams is very bad at is being a Slack competitor. My last employer used Teams for video calls and Slack for workplace chatting.
- mhermher 3y ago
  Same. We use both. Slack for chat. Mostly Teams for video.
feyman_r 3y ago
If admins are ‘lazy’, wouldn’t they regret a choice they made that increased their work (it being a horror show and all that) and instead go back to the smart choice of not-Teams? Do we have data on loss of productivity for companies that migrated away from Teams? If it’s so bad how are consumer companies of Teams making it justifiable for loss of productivity to shareholders? What I’m getting at is that it’s a more complex equation than just laziness being a parameter. Cost and ROI are the other two (among more likely).
- exceptione 3y ago
  Shareholders will never know if skype for business got replaced by teams. > Do we have data on loss of productivity for companies that migrated away from Teams? "We have no time for that. MS recommends Teams and it comes for free" ---- I will tell you a dirty secret. Most company os images only ship with the default MS browser. I had colleagues using Internet Explorer or later Edge when Firefox and Chrome had already run out of sight. Had to help them over Skype or Teams. "just laziness being a parameter." Competence is an other one indeed. Many sysadmins will follow MS like it is a cult. If MS blesses Skype for business, it will be Skype for business. If MS bundles Teams, it will be Teams.
LegitShady 3y ago
I agree so long as they go after Apple for FaceTime, iCloud and any other bundled software you get with apple devices that gives them unfair advantages over other developers. If its just Microsoft, though, then no, because everyone else is bundling software but they’re only chasing Microsoft.
randprog1 3y ago
Is it really about lazy admins? Or does Microsoft just make it more convenient for companies that are already heavily invested in the Microsoft ecosystem?
jensensbutton 3y ago
> Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. The product is an incredible horror show..." And yet no one sees enough value in Slack to pay for it. I type this on a mac, which has built in notes, but I pay for my own notes solution. My company uses Zoom DESPITE paying for gsuite. If Slack offered enough value people would pay for it. Unfortunately Slack's just not that good.
- cbeach 3y ago
  Employee of $5bn company that exclusively uses Slack, here. I LOVE Slack. Great integrations, fast, solid apps, UX. it makes Teams look third rate by comparison. We’ve nearly completely done away with email, thanks to Slack. Most of our suppliers use it, so we can chat live to them in Slack rather than email.
delfinom 3y ago
>They are smart and counted on lazy admins. Cheap admins, not lazy. IT Admins often have their hands tied by corporate bureaucracy that makes a DMV jealous.
swarnie 3y ago
> They are smart and counted on lazy admins. We aren't lazy, its just a hard sell to buy/manage an additional product when this fully integrated one is essentially free with 365. Your welcome to come speak to my C's instead if you want?
pipes 3y ago
So other companies get to charge me for their messaging app and ms should be prevented from providing theirs for free? I thought these laws were there to protect consumers not competitors. The whole premise of the argument here is that everyone is too stupid and or lazy to try alternative products. Teams works, there is no monopoly here, other messaging apps are free to disrupt with their superior products.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>The bad thing: Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. Neither would have Chrome to be fair. I remember being a PC user in the late '00s and Chrome ads and downloads links where absolutely everywhere. On Google, on Youtube, on GMail, on any kind of SW installer for Windows would come with a pre-ticked checkbox that would shove Chrome down your throat and then also set itself as the default browser on your system, like ad/-spyware. Naughty-naughty. It was impossible to escape Chrome not getting on your Windows machine back then, it was like a disease. Sure, it was also hip and cool back then, like all brand new products launched by Google back then that generated hype and curiosity getting people to talk about it and recommend it further, but it wouldn't have reached such insane popularity on pure merit and word of mouth alone.

crgwbr 3y ago
But also when Chrome first came out, it was legitimately better than the competitors. FF at the time was horribly slow. Teams was never better than Slack.
- nerdix 3y ago
  Exactly. It's been a while and so a lot people either don't remember or were too young to really remember. I was a Firefox user at the time (was using it when it was Firebird). People were already starting to shift away from IE towards Firefox at the time. A sequence of events where a person's computer was infect with malware, they asked a computer savvy friend for help, the friend "fixed" it, installed Firefox and told them to stop using IE is how most people switched browsers in those days. But Firefox was a slog and Chrome was a breath of fresh air when it was first released. So the sequence was tweaked to "install Chrome and tell you to stop using IE". Chrome became what it is because Microsoft had tried to neuter the internet because they saw the web app potential and understood that it could undermine Windows market share. And when they realized that there was no stopping the internet, they spent several years incompetently trying to improve IE (and eventually Edge) before eventually going the "can't beat em, join em" route.
- exceptione 3y ago
  Chrome was faster and optimized for google services indeed. However, Google was smart enough to know that being superior doesn't count. Firefox was not horribly slow, the leap from firefox over IE was massive. Chrome over firefox wasn't quite the same leap. The average user has been pushed aggressively, they weren't going to do research on web browsers when they even didn't know what a web browser is. Google knew that.
  - actualwitch 3y ago
    Your pink glasses are showing. For the longest time before quantum firefox was generally very slow and straight up locking ui thread when it feels like it.
  - misnome 3y ago
    When a tab crashed or got heavy usage on Firefox, the whole browser locked up. Chrome didn’t. It was noticeably faster and more reliable. Switching browsers isn’t something that people generally do lightly. You lose them, you lose them for a decade+. That and Mozilla behaviour hasn’t been great over the past several years; like, forced advertising extensions, crypto, more advertising to turn off on a fresh install than _google_… Manifest v3 will probably be the straw that forces me to switch back again, but reluctantly.
nerdix 3y ago
How so? People with an already functioning browser that ships with their OS have to make a conscious decision to download and install Chrome. Most people would not do that if the default browser of their OS was serviceable. Chrome gained traction because IE was really, really bad. Now it has mindshare and you might could argue that Google maintains this mindshare with malpractice.
- warning26 3y ago
  Yeah, GP is forgetting what the browser landscape looked like in 2008. IE was awful, and Firefox was…perfectly cromulent. Chrome was so much better than any of the competition.
  - exceptione 3y ago
    Average joe did not do research. Forget it. - They found the internet had gotten a new icon and had no idea how it got there. (bundling with popular software) - They were instructed by google. That is how chrome came to top. See other comments for more context.
    - warning26 3y ago
      I mean, what would you expect? The fact is, browsers aren't a product, they're a platform feature. Users have zero incentive to ever switch from whatever their OS came bundled with, unless you make a massive advertising push. The fact that Google managed to get people to switch to a non-platform browser at all is a shocking achievement.
      - olyjohn 3y ago
        Done by tricking people, and sneakily bundling itself with everything. Sleezey, scumbag achievement.
        warning26 3y ago
        I agree that some of their tactics were questionable, but they were up against IE, and Microsoft's bundling of it. Would you rather everyone still be using IE? Because that's exactly what would have happened otherwise.
Semaphor 3y ago
What? Chrome was so far ahead of everyone else, it wasn’t even funny. I remember telling everyone I knew to use Chrome instead of whatever they used because it was so much better.
mschuster91 3y ago
> but it wouldn't have reached such insane popularity on pure merit and word of mouth alone. It was just soooo much better than the competition. I mean, Firefox was better than IE6, but that was not a high bar to pass in the first place. The thing that won over developers IMO was the developer tools: Firebug was slow as molasses and an utter memory hog. And that didn't change for many years - but by the time Firefox caught up, it was too late.
- pjerem 3y ago
  You are exaggerating here. While there was for sure a long period of time where Chrome was significantly faster than Firefox, there was never a time where Firefox was particularly bad. Firefox always oscillated between "really good" and "totally ok". I’ll agree with you that Chrome really changed the web development experience with incredible tooling compared to what you could get back then but this had no impact on most users experience. I totally remember Chrome being the fastest/snappiest browser, especially the first versions but Firefox has never been slow.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > I’ll agree with you that Chrome really changed the web development experience with incredible tooling compared to what you could get back then but this had no impact on most users experience. Yes, but guess what the developers started pushing onto their friends who asked for a browser? The one they were personally using. Word-of-mouth is insanely powerful and FF alienated way too many of the key people.
sneak 3y ago
Ads and download promotions are not bundling and it is an error to conflate them. Aggressive marketing is not malpractice.
rejectfinite 3y ago
Chrome was better and faster than Firefox when it came out...
slibhb 3y ago
No. Chrome was much faster than Firefox when it came out, which was in turn much faster than IE.

mschuster91 3y ago

> The bad thing: Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. The product is an incredible horror show, all competition easily crushed Teams. They are smart and counted on lazy admins. Huh what? IME, it's many MANY miles better in user experience than Cisco Webex and Skype for Business, these were absolute clusterfucks, unlike Zoom it doesn't do very weird hacks in the installer that led to security issues [1], and unlike Slack it has absolutely zero problems scaling to hundreds-of-users videocalls. Haven't experienced using landline telephony gateways with it yet, but I'll be glad to get rid of Cisco Jabber as well. Sorry to say it but Cisco's stuff is stuck many years in the past, their focus was on insanely expensive telephony systems and fancy conference room setups for too long. If there's one company that deserves disruption, it's them. The point that competitors can rightfully complain about is the seamless integration with the rest of Office 365 products (create/provision Teams meetings from Outlook directly, and streaming Powerpoint presentations directly to clients as files instead of screengrabbing)... but hey, again, the UX is so much better. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/16/users-of-zoom-on-macs-told-to-update-app-as-company-issues-security-fix https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/16/users-of-...

heyoni 3y ago
Huh what? Doesn’t do any weird hacks? Where do I even start…ok try and turn off the updater on macOS using the systemctl command…all that does is prevent the auto updater from running…what happens after that is Teams will crash every 5 minutes after launching. You want more weird privacy breaking dark patterns? Try initiating a Teams call from your phone without giving it access to your local network. You can’t. If I, the user, decide I’d rather not allow Teams to nmap my local network, or decide there aren’t any conferencing devices, Microsoft doesn’t care. Expose your local network or you can’t make any calls to anyone. And you want to talk about user experience…if you go afk, you stop receiving all new messages…that is until you move your mouse again. Dark mode can’t be synced to the system on Mac. Native notifications weren’t a thing on Mac until like a year ago. Performance is horrid. Click anything, change channels, press any button and you’re waiting hundreds of milliseconds if not seconds! The only cure for that is using a souped up M1/2 processor. The list goes on. Teams might be better than webex or Skype but that bar is loooooooow.

ekianjo 3y ago

> The product is an incredible horror show, all competition easily crushed Teams. Yes, except that it has a killer feature: absolute integration with office365. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to you, but for companies that is a very big factor.

nohankyou 3y ago
Correct the collaboration and integrations are far better. Our collaboration on documents has improved heavily just by Office365 alone, the Teams integrations to documents and dashboards makes for awesome project-based channels. Slack didn't do anything but cause distraction and people responding with terrible custom emojis (a feature I will never miss).
vladvasiliu 3y ago
Anecdotally, when I get calendar events for random conference services, I'll get a join button in the event which sends me to that service. Ditto for Teams invites from my organization. But teams invites from other organizations don't have the join button, neither in Outlook nor in Teams itself. I have to open the event and click the link. If I do it in Teams, I'll have to click the expand button to see the link. I don't have any conferencing app installed aside from Teams. I join the others in the browser.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

> Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. Maybe so but I think Slack is still hot garbage.

zo1 3y ago

Where is this hate coming from? Teams is amazing, and I much prefer it to things like slack for company comms, even more so for its integration with Outlook and AD. MS is doing an amazing job and they deserve to be rewarded for this amazing product, not punished because you guys want competition and weirdly like SASS products that promote a fragmented ecosystem. And I say this as someone that runs Linux at home and doesn't touch MS dev tooling or languages. Including VS code.

madiele 3y ago
The chat experience is horrible on team, read recepit work half of the time, notifications are super weird in how they get handled, reactions cound as a notification separated from the chat, and so on...

elforce002 3y ago

100% agree with your take. It's long overdue. Same goes to Facebook and Amazon. There are much to be done on that front. Divest Facebook into different entities (ig, WhatsApp, Facebook, Oculus), Amazon (AWS, marketplace, Twitch, whole foods, etc...), Microsoft (azure, office, teams, etc..). This will foster competition and fairness. They have too much power now.

pwthornton 3y ago

As a piece of video conferencing tech, I find it to be one of the best. I think it is the best for team calls. A few are better for really large all hands. But I find Teams much better than Google Meet, Webex, Zoom, and many of the other usual competitors. It's stable, the video and audio quality is good, it has very good virtual background support that works well, it can easily record calls, etc. What Teams is very bad at is being a Slack competitor. My last employer used Teams for video calls and Slack for workplace chatting.

mhermher 3y ago
Same. We use both. Slack for chat. Mostly Teams for video.

feyman_r 3y ago

If admins are ‘lazy’, wouldn’t they regret a choice they made that increased their work (it being a horror show and all that) and instead go back to the smart choice of not-Teams? Do we have data on loss of productivity for companies that migrated away from Teams? If it’s so bad how are consumer companies of Teams making it justifiable for loss of productivity to shareholders? What I’m getting at is that it’s a more complex equation than just laziness being a parameter. Cost and ROI are the other two (among more likely).

exceptione 3y ago
Shareholders will never know if skype for business got replaced by teams. > Do we have data on loss of productivity for companies that migrated away from Teams? "We have no time for that. MS recommends Teams and it comes for free" ---- I will tell you a dirty secret. Most company os images only ship with the default MS browser. I had colleagues using Internet Explorer or later Edge when Firefox and Chrome had already run out of sight. Had to help them over Skype or Teams. "just laziness being a parameter." Competence is an other one indeed. Many sysadmins will follow MS like it is a cult. If MS blesses Skype for business, it will be Skype for business. If MS bundles Teams, it will be Teams.

LegitShady 3y ago

I agree so long as they go after Apple for FaceTime, iCloud and any other bundled software you get with apple devices that gives them unfair advantages over other developers. If its just Microsoft, though, then no, because everyone else is bundling software but they’re only chasing Microsoft.

randprog1 3y ago

Is it really about lazy admins? Or does Microsoft just make it more convenient for companies that are already heavily invested in the Microsoft ecosystem?

jensensbutton 3y ago

> Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. The product is an incredible horror show..." And yet no one sees enough value in Slack to pay for it. I type this on a mac, which has built in notes, but I pay for my own notes solution. My company uses Zoom DESPITE paying for gsuite. If Slack offered enough value people would pay for it. Unfortunately Slack's just not that good.

cbeach 3y ago
Employee of $5bn company that exclusively uses Slack, here. I LOVE Slack. Great integrations, fast, solid apps, UX. it makes Teams look third rate by comparison. We’ve nearly completely done away with email, thanks to Slack. Most of our suppliers use it, so we can chat live to them in Slack rather than email.

delfinom 3y ago

>They are smart and counted on lazy admins. Cheap admins, not lazy. IT Admins often have their hands tied by corporate bureaucracy that makes a DMV jealous.

swarnie 3y ago

> They are smart and counted on lazy admins. We aren't lazy, its just a hard sell to buy/manage an additional product when this fully integrated one is essentially free with 365. Your welcome to come speak to my C's instead if you want?

pipes 3y ago

So other companies get to charge me for their messaging app and ms should be prevented from providing theirs for free? I thought these laws were there to protect consumers not competitors. The whole premise of the argument here is that everyone is too stupid and or lazy to try alternative products. Teams works, there is no monopoly here, other messaging apps are free to disrupt with their superior products.