Seriously, this is so ridiculous: So Slack filed a complain because their chat application looses against Teams?
I mean, Slack could have like innovated and make their application really, really good so that customers choose Slack over Teams because of the value it brings.
Instead they go the legal/lobbyist way and cry because a chat application obviously isn’t a forever gold mine.
The EU being technically illiterate and dump enough to play along is even more ridiculous than Slacks entitlement.
(For the record: I don’t like Teams, Office, Microsoft, Slack etc… but this is just such an obvious/bullshit lobbyist move.)
Slack did not file a complaint because they’re losing. This is what it says in the article:
Slack filed a complaint with the EU in 2020, claiming that Microsoft was “force installing [Teams] for millions, blocking its removal, and hiding the true cost to enterprise customers.”
And this is investigated 3 years later than the complaint. Microsoft has a history of installing bloatware and changing default clients to open with their own software.
I am referring to the motivation for Slack to file a complaint, look at the numbers (50 vs 300 millions) which clearly show that Slack is loosing. Do you seriously imply that Slack is filing their complaint to reduce bloatware? (In that case, I am happy to see Slack starting to debloat their client. :-P)
As I already said, I am no fan of Teams, Microsoft, etc. but IMHO by now everyone grown up can decide what messenger app to install, there is enough competition (Apple, Linux) on the desktop for people who want less/different bloatware.
I am just seriously tired of the EU investing time and energy in this bullshit instead of investing energy in important/useful topic for its citizens.
I don’t think you’re quite grasping the situation here. Slack does not come preinstalled on any system, Teams does. That is the whole point, unfair competition. Large companies have a history of bullying smaller ones. Any action against these giants is long overdue and very necessary.
I totally grasp the situation. The same could be said about notepad.exe, the File Explorer and everything else that comes preinstalled with Windows. According to the preinstalled logic, Windows should just be delivered with a kernel to even the competition.
AFAIK Slack is a Startup, backed by VC. If we would speak about Sublime Text vs. Notepad.exe, we might have ethical/moral grounds for a discussion.
Edit: … and just to be more clear: We have SublimeText, Directory Opus etc. - great software from great teams, which can survive although they compete with preinstalled software on Microsoft Windows. If Slack would provide something really valuable, Teams wouldn’t have had such an easy play. Same is true for Zoom.
IMO I don’t think “convenience” is a fair argument. If Windows did not allow their users to install another client, that would be one thing. But just pre-installing something on their own OS isn’t grounds for any complaint whatsoever. You don’t get to complain that Company XYZ makes a product A and bundles it with their product B and makes it more convenient for users lmao. Users have the means to install any client they want.
I am just seriously tired of the EU investing time and energy
Then complain to Microsoft for continuing to push the boundaries. This lawsuit wouldn’t have happened if Microsoft didn’t do the same thing that got them in trouble before, i.e. with browsers.
The EU should get independent of Microsoft for something so important like the IT infrastructure, instead of painting lipstick on a pig.
Edit: And if the EU is independent from Microsoft, I would prefer to use a messaging system like Matrix instead of blowing money into something like Slack.
I’m the same way, but about the US. I think it’s really dumb that the military uses a priority operating system when they could have complete control with Linux or FreeBSD. Likewise for schools and whatnot.
everyone grown up can decide what messenger app to install,
That’s literally what the lawsuit is about. No one is making the deliberate choice to buy or install teams. It comes forcefully bundled with office and Microsoft are using this to push out the competition.
At the start of the pandemic everyone was using zoom. Now most universities and medium businesses have switched to teams. Everyone hates it, but no one wants to pay for two video chat clients.
The problem is that Microsoft is in a position to push Teams in an unfair way. They bundle it with other software that their clients will already be using, thus making it the most convenient choice. Convenience is a huge deciding factor in what an organization adopts, since supporting a single software bundle can be much easier than many disparate ones. Leveraging your existing market share in an unrelated domain to edge out competitors in another is exactly why antitrust legislation exists.
I agree with your points, but by that logic, Google (Android), Apple and all other smartphone/smart appliances provider should be sued, too. Think about FaceTime(?), Apple Safari (where they even force their shitty browser engine on iOS on you) etc.
If we all agree that this bundles are a problem, the solution is simply: Don’t allow any bundling at all, for no one.
Seriously, this is so ridiculous: So Slack filed a complain because their chat application looses against Teams?
I mean, Slack could have like innovated and make their application really, really good so that customers choose Slack over Teams because of the value it brings.
Instead they go the legal/lobbyist way and cry because a chat application obviously isn’t a forever gold mine.
The EU being technically illiterate and dump enough to play along is even more ridiculous than Slacks entitlement.
(For the record: I don’t like Teams, Office, Microsoft, Slack etc… but this is just such an obvious/bullshit lobbyist move.)
Slack did not file a complaint because they’re losing. This is what it says in the article: Slack filed a complaint with the EU in 2020, claiming that Microsoft was “force installing [Teams] for millions, blocking its removal, and hiding the true cost to enterprise customers.” And this is investigated 3 years later than the complaint. Microsoft has a history of installing bloatware and changing default clients to open with their own software.
I am referring to the motivation for Slack to file a complaint, look at the numbers (50 vs 300 millions) which clearly show that Slack is loosing. Do you seriously imply that Slack is filing their complaint to reduce bloatware? (In that case, I am happy to see Slack starting to debloat their client. :-P)
As I already said, I am no fan of Teams, Microsoft, etc. but IMHO by now everyone grown up can decide what messenger app to install, there is enough competition (Apple, Linux) on the desktop for people who want less/different bloatware.
I am just seriously tired of the EU investing time and energy in this bullshit instead of investing energy in important/useful topic for its citizens.
deleted by creator
Thanks for your elaboration, I am not qualified to know or answer, if Microsoft broke the law concerning Teams.
I don’t think you’re quite grasping the situation here. Slack does not come preinstalled on any system, Teams does. That is the whole point, unfair competition. Large companies have a history of bullying smaller ones. Any action against these giants is long overdue and very necessary.
I totally grasp the situation. The same could be said about notepad.exe, the File Explorer and everything else that comes preinstalled with Windows. According to the preinstalled logic, Windows should just be delivered with a kernel to even the competition.
AFAIK Slack is a Startup, backed by VC. If we would speak about Sublime Text vs. Notepad.exe, we might have ethical/moral grounds for a discussion.
Edit: … and just to be more clear: We have SublimeText, Directory Opus etc. - great software from great teams, which can survive although they compete with preinstalled software on Microsoft Windows. If Slack would provide something really valuable, Teams wouldn’t have had such an easy play. Same is true for Zoom.
IMO I don’t think “convenience” is a fair argument. If Windows did not allow their users to install another client, that would be one thing. But just pre-installing something on their own OS isn’t grounds for any complaint whatsoever. You don’t get to complain that Company XYZ makes a product A and bundles it with their product B and makes it more convenient for users lmao. Users have the means to install any client they want.
Then complain to Microsoft for continuing to push the boundaries. This lawsuit wouldn’t have happened if Microsoft didn’t do the same thing that got them in trouble before, i.e. with browsers.
Microsoft does Microsoft things.
I complain about the EU and my own technical incompetent government for a simple reason:
For years now, we have Open Source Software that is good enough ™ for the public sector, and for example the French police showed already that you can move to Linux (https://www.zdnet.com/article/french-police-move-from-windows-to-ubuntu-linux/).
The EU should get independent of Microsoft for something so important like the IT infrastructure, instead of painting lipstick on a pig.
Edit: And if the EU is independent from Microsoft, I would prefer to use a messaging system like Matrix instead of blowing money into something like Slack.
I’m the same way, but about the US. I think it’s really dumb that the military uses a priority operating system when they could have complete control with Linux or FreeBSD. Likewise for schools and whatnot.
That’s literally what the lawsuit is about. No one is making the deliberate choice to buy or install teams. It comes forcefully bundled with office and Microsoft are using this to push out the competition.
At the start of the pandemic everyone was using zoom. Now most universities and medium businesses have switched to teams. Everyone hates it, but no one wants to pay for two video chat clients.
The problem is that Microsoft is in a position to push Teams in an unfair way. They bundle it with other software that their clients will already be using, thus making it the most convenient choice. Convenience is a huge deciding factor in what an organization adopts, since supporting a single software bundle can be much easier than many disparate ones. Leveraging your existing market share in an unrelated domain to edge out competitors in another is exactly why antitrust legislation exists.
Totally proper use of the law.
I agree with your points, but by that logic, Google (Android), Apple and all other smartphone/smart appliances provider should be sued, too. Think about FaceTime(?), Apple Safari (where they even force their shitty browser engine on iOS on you) etc.
If we all agree that this bundles are a problem, the solution is simply: Don’t allow any bundling at all, for no one.