4 ms·

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 c

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.