So after giving it out as a freebie for years now they get to charge their victims for it separately too. Congratulations to everyone who contributed to this!
Teams is so entrenched in the “enterprise” space there’s no going back for any of them.
jen20•5mo ago
My employer just switched from Teams to Slack. Vast improvement in every respect.
chrismeller•5mo ago
Slack vs. Teams is one of those great examples of designing a product from the ground up to do exactly what it's supposed to do well vs. seeing a business opportunity and throwing a bunch of crap together to meet it.
justinrubek•5mo ago
I don't even like slack nor do I think it's done particularly well. But at least it isn't teams.
dijit•5mo ago
you’re missing the point, if it’s a paid add on instead of bundled it won’t be using one monopoly to aid another.
Other competitors will be considered on their merits.
I’ve never seen a company use teams for any reason other than they already have it for free.
And the thought of paying for something that you already have is unthinkable to a CFO… and CFOs tend to run the IT department for some reason.
redrove•5mo ago
Fair point, you’re right. I’m just frustrated it took them this long and I haven’t seen the Slack app in years unfortunately :(
> CFOs tend to run the IT department for some reason.
Bean counters took over as bosses a long time ago.
immibis•5mo ago
Google was ordered to stop linking Google Maps from location searches. Some people framed it as the EU forcing pointless extra work on people because you just type in maps.google.com and the same search again. But the thing is, it's fair now: you can just as easily type in maps.apple.com or something else. It's equal effort no matter who you choose for maps, so the market is no longer manipulated.
Same thing here. You could pay Microsoft for Teams but you could also pay someone else for something like Teams, and the friction should be identical, enabling market competition again.
guywithahat•5mo ago
Dodge seems like a poor choice of words given they're just following the EU's orders to avoid the fine. I can't read the article since it's pay-walled, but that seems to be the gist of it from the first two paragraphs
My subscription is actually for "Microsoft 365 blah blah blah (without Teams)" and costs some small amount less, so I had just assumed they already had?
redrove•5mo ago
Teams is so entrenched in the “enterprise” space there’s no going back for any of them.
jen20•5mo ago
chrismeller•5mo ago
justinrubek•5mo ago
dijit•5mo ago
Other competitors will be considered on their merits.
I’ve never seen a company use teams for any reason other than they already have it for free.
And the thought of paying for something that you already have is unthinkable to a CFO… and CFOs tend to run the IT department for some reason.
redrove•5mo ago
> CFOs tend to run the IT department for some reason.
Bean counters took over as bosses a long time ago.
immibis•5mo ago
Same thing here. You could pay Microsoft for Teams but you could also pay someone else for something like Teams, and the friction should be identical, enabling market competition again.