3 ms·
Don’t know what’s hard to understand there? Microsoft didn’t have a chat product (worth anything, Skype was a mountain of crap). Slack comes along and builds a
by gklitz 2y ago
Don’t know what’s hard to understand there? Microsoft didn’t have a chat product (worth anything, Skype was a mountain of crap). Slack comes along and builds a great product, Microsoft goes “oh, the office suite now includes teams!” So everyone gets it “for free” if they have the office suite, murdering slack in the market. And of cause everyone will have to pay for Teams as the price of the office package rises to I cover the costs, no free lunch and all that.
It had been a different story if Teams had always been a part of office, and slack came along and tried to compete. But come on this is a 100% clear cut abuse of a monopoly on windows office programs by Microsoft abused to outcompete a competitor that they couldn’t fight honestly.
- _heimdall 2y agoSo the legal line is that once a company is successful in bundling and selling products the bundle is locked and can never be added to? That seems unreasonable to me, and I generally am pretty hard on monopolistic issues. Edit: wouldn't this mean that Apple could never have added a preinstalled app to the iPhone after the phones became successful?
- paulryanrogers 2y agoIf success is near total domination then yes?
- disgruntledphd2 2y agoNo, it's just that you can't use dominance in one market to privilege yourself in another. Basically cross promotion and bundling are looked at very sceptically once you get large enough.
- chucke1992 2y agoslack murdered itself from the market by not delivering good video conferencing solution. Zoom succeeded immensely and it was not bundled with any office suite. And the hilarious part is that Slack is still crap in regards of video calls.