2 ms·

Hate to break it to you but even if they broke out pricing and SKU, the MS rep is going to offer Teams a separate product and majority of the time bosses will b

Hate to break it to you but even if they broke out pricing and SKU, the MS rep is going to offer Teams a separate product and majority of the time bosses will buy it out of convenience. Why bother evaluating slack/zoom when mail, calendar, files,call recording and transcript are integrated with Teams especially for old school companies

arnvald 2y ago
In some companies yes, but in other ones when comparing two similarly priced products, the decision will be made based on something else than just a budget. Currently often the narrative is “we have it included for $0, why would we pay $100 per year per employee for a similar product?”
quitit 2y ago
Exactly this, the current top comment decries how their sales were affected by Teams, but there is no moat on video-calling software. Without a unique proposition disruption was bound to come knocking. Apple bundles Team's-like functionality with FaceTime, but it's not being targeted. The EU's position is largely driven from who is successful. But what is success? Anyone who has a pre-existing relationship with the customer is going to be able to have the opportunity to inform the customer about their new products, brand trust and convenience go a long way in co-selling. People that make basic apps frequently complain that they have had their app "stolen" when a, typically larger, competitor releases similar functionality. However was it truly their "idea", or were they just an early entrant that squandered their early lead? The majority of ordinary computing functions of today started out as 3rd party applications, some churn is expected - I don't see it as innovation if we give companies false monopolies on ideas. If Apple can't protect the iPhone paradigm as a unique combination of features, no one should expect to keep possession of simpler or smaller ideas.

arnvald 2y ago

In some companies yes, but in other ones when comparing two similarly priced products, the decision will be made based on something else than just a budget. Currently often the narrative is “we have it included for $0, why would we pay $100 per year per employee for a similar product?”

quitit 2y ago

Exactly this, the current top comment decries how their sales were affected by Teams, but there is no moat on video-calling software. Without a unique proposition disruption was bound to come knocking. Apple bundles Team's-like functionality with FaceTime, but it's not being targeted. The EU's position is largely driven from who is successful. But what is success? Anyone who has a pre-existing relationship with the customer is going to be able to have the opportunity to inform the customer about their new products, brand trust and convenience go a long way in co-selling. People that make basic apps frequently complain that they have had their app "stolen" when a, typically larger, competitor releases similar functionality. However was it truly their "idea", or were they just an early entrant that squandered their early lead? The majority of ordinary computing functions of today started out as 3rd party applications, some churn is expected - I don't see it as innovation if we give companies false monopolies on ideas. If Apple can't protect the iPhone paradigm as a unique combination of features, no one should expect to keep possession of simpler or smaller ideas.