5 ms·

Almost everything I do for work uses teams, so I can't say MS missed any boats. It's spectacular how pervasive teams is given how universally reviled it is. I'd

Almost everything I do for work uses teams, so I can't say MS missed any boats. It's spectacular how pervasive teams is given how universally reviled it is. I'd personally switch back to slack in a heartbeat for instance.

l33tman 2y ago
Don't know about Slack's videoconf, but Slack's cheap insistence that we pay a rip-off amount of money per month for storing some TEXT messages more than 90 days has continuously degraded my appreciation for it over the last years to the level of me hating it now. They're so cheap. Just put a quota on total storage or something, that actually map to their costs.. We have a Slack for a shared office of 10 people or so, we use it to like ask each other for where to go for lunch or general stuff, it must cost them $0.001/month to host, but you continuously get a banner that says PAY TO UNLOCK THESE EXCITING OLD MESSAGES all over it, and when you check what they want, they want some exorbitant amount like $10/month/user so $100/month for a lunch-synchronization tool. For $100/month I can store like 5 TB on S3, that's a lot of texts. I'm genuinely curious why they don't have some other payment option, I'd be happy to pay $1/month/user for some basic level if they just don't want freeloaders there. Well, I wouldn't be happy.. but still :)
- OskarS 2y ago
  Slack is primarily a business tool, and for a business tool $10/user/month is extremely reasonable for the value (perceived or real) it brings. The company has to make money, and you do that by charging for your products and services, and that price is not exorbitant.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    The really egregious thing is that when businesses pay for Slack, it remains unindexed and they just change the retention to 1yr. Nothing is as frustrating as looking for an old conversation referenced in a doc and being smugly told by some corporate dick that Slack isn't for documentation and if it were important info, clearly someone should have saved it. Never mind who, it should just magically happen. The gap between "messages last for 30 days" and "Slack keeps a searchable record of all your business decisions in a useful way, forever" is huge. I can pretty easily see the value of the latter but it seems to freak executives out for some reason...
    - alabastervlog 2y ago
      They don’t want records around that expose crimes when discovery happens, and they want that so much that they shave a percent or two off the company’s productivity to get it.
    - Denvercoder9 2y ago
      > The really egregious thing is that when businesses pay for Slack, it remains unindexed and they just change the retention to 1yr. That doesn't track with my experience as a user at all. Almost every day I do a search that returns results older than a year.
    - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
      If it's important enough to mention in a document then the person creating the document should preserve a copy of what is clearly ephemeral information. It's just as daft was referencing emails in a document.
      - SR2Z 2y ago
        Yes, but what people should do rarely matches what they actually do and deleting old messages just makes it impossible to recover that info. I find that this take is much more common among managers and executives who are used to being spoon-fed documentation than among the engineers who actually have to write and hunt for it.
- crummy 2y ago
  This frustrates me too. Discord stores your messages forever for free! They're slowly eating Slack's lunch when it comes to internet communities... but I guess Slack doesn't really care; those communities were never going to pay any real money anyway.
  - high_na_euv 2y ago
    Slowly? Discord is #1 in gaming and probably dev too
    - Macha 2y ago
      Yeah, I'd say discord taking skype's lunch in the gaming market was something that happened "rapidly" and "in 2016". EDIT: Oh, this subthread is about slack. I do think Slack's permissions model is better suited to business use than Discord's.
- el_snark 2y ago
  You may like to look at a self-hosted mattermost then.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  Slack is part of Salesforce now. Do I need to say anything else?
- knowitnone 2y ago
  you're getting services for free and you call them cheap?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- soundnote 2y ago
  Yeah, I just checked to reply to another commenter, and Slack's just expensive: Slack Pro's 8€/mo/user Teams Essentials is 4€/user/mo M365 Business Basic is 6€/user/mo
delecti 2y ago
At my job we use Teams, but basically just for meetings (and the associated chat), and it works really well. About the only complaint I could make is that it occasionally guesses the wrong audio devices, but it's fairly easy to change them. I didn't understand all the hate until a few groups tried pushing the actual "teams" inside "Teams", and goddamn they are bad. They're an awkward and confusing mashup of chat rooms and forums, with conversations spread across different levels and constructs that each receive different levels of UI focus.
- datadrivenangel 2y ago
  Yeah teams for actual phone calls is good, often with better noise cancelling and reliability than zoom these days. But the mess of sharepoint/o365 opened in wrappers inside of teams for the teams and it's just a hot mess that makes me angry when the UI is so different.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  At a company I worked at someone saved some important data in Teams and left the company and I was tasked with trying to export it but it turns out it would have taken significant time scripting the API to extract all the data. They said forget it and just left it in the Teams and made sure not to delete her account.
  - stackskipton 2y ago
    It's in her OneDrive most likely, go pluck it out of there.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  That's because "Teams" inside Teams are not part of Teams, it's tied to Sharepoint/Exchange and thus poorly integrated.

l33tman 2y ago

Don't know about Slack's videoconf, but Slack's cheap insistence that we pay a rip-off amount of money per month for storing some TEXT messages more than 90 days has continuously degraded my appreciation for it over the last years to the level of me hating it now. They're so cheap. Just put a quota on total storage or something, that actually map to their costs.. We have a Slack for a shared office of 10 people or so, we use it to like ask each other for where to go for lunch or general stuff, it must cost them $0.001/month to host, but you continuously get a banner that says PAY TO UNLOCK THESE EXCITING OLD MESSAGES all over it, and when you check what they want, they want some exorbitant amount like $10/month/user so $100/month for a lunch-synchronization tool. For $100/month I can store like 5 TB on S3, that's a lot of texts. I'm genuinely curious why they don't have some other payment option, I'd be happy to pay $1/month/user for some basic level if they just don't want freeloaders there. Well, I wouldn't be happy.. but still :)

OskarS 2y ago
Slack is primarily a business tool, and for a business tool $10/user/month is extremely reasonable for the value (perceived or real) it brings. The company has to make money, and you do that by charging for your products and services, and that price is not exorbitant.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  The really egregious thing is that when businesses pay for Slack, it remains unindexed and they just change the retention to 1yr. Nothing is as frustrating as looking for an old conversation referenced in a doc and being smugly told by some corporate dick that Slack isn't for documentation and if it were important info, clearly someone should have saved it. Never mind who, it should just magically happen. The gap between "messages last for 30 days" and "Slack keeps a searchable record of all your business decisions in a useful way, forever" is huge. I can pretty easily see the value of the latter but it seems to freak executives out for some reason...
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    They don’t want records around that expose crimes when discovery happens, and they want that so much that they shave a percent or two off the company’s productivity to get it.
  - Denvercoder9 2y ago
    > The really egregious thing is that when businesses pay for Slack, it remains unindexed and they just change the retention to 1yr. That doesn't track with my experience as a user at all. Almost every day I do a search that returns results older than a year.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    If it's important enough to mention in a document then the person creating the document should preserve a copy of what is clearly ephemeral information. It's just as daft was referencing emails in a document.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      Yes, but what people should do rarely matches what they actually do and deleting old messages just makes it impossible to recover that info. I find that this take is much more common among managers and executives who are used to being spoon-fed documentation than among the engineers who actually have to write and hunt for it.
crummy 2y ago
This frustrates me too. Discord stores your messages forever for free! They're slowly eating Slack's lunch when it comes to internet communities... but I guess Slack doesn't really care; those communities were never going to pay any real money anyway.
- high_na_euv 2y ago
  Slowly? Discord is #1 in gaming and probably dev too
  - Macha 2y ago
    Yeah, I'd say discord taking skype's lunch in the gaming market was something that happened "rapidly" and "in 2016". EDIT: Oh, this subthread is about slack. I do think Slack's permissions model is better suited to business use than Discord's.
el_snark 2y ago
You may like to look at a self-hosted mattermost then.
bayindirh 2y ago
Slack is part of Salesforce now. Do I need to say anything else?
knowitnone 2y ago
you're getting services for free and you call them cheap?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
soundnote 2y ago
Yeah, I just checked to reply to another commenter, and Slack's just expensive: Slack Pro's 8€/mo/user Teams Essentials is 4€/user/mo M365 Business Basic is 6€/user/mo

delecti 2y ago

At my job we use Teams, but basically just for meetings (and the associated chat), and it works really well. About the only complaint I could make is that it occasionally guesses the wrong audio devices, but it's fairly easy to change them. I didn't understand all the hate until a few groups tried pushing the actual "teams" inside "Teams", and goddamn they are bad. They're an awkward and confusing mashup of chat rooms and forums, with conversations spread across different levels and constructs that each receive different levels of UI focus.

datadrivenangel 2y ago
Yeah teams for actual phone calls is good, often with better noise cancelling and reliability than zoom these days. But the mess of sharepoint/o365 opened in wrappers inside of teams for the teams and it's just a hot mess that makes me angry when the UI is so different.
UltraSane 2y ago
At a company I worked at someone saved some important data in Teams and left the company and I was tasked with trying to export it but it turns out it would have taken significant time scripting the API to extract all the data. They said forget it and just left it in the Teams and made sure not to delete her account.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  It's in her OneDrive most likely, go pluck it out of there.
stackskipton 2y ago
That's because "Teams" inside Teams are not part of Teams, it's tied to Sharepoint/Exchange and thus poorly integrated.