Well… that depends on who you ask. Some say that Teams being a part of the bundle is anti competitive (which it is). Outlook used to be only a mail client, so it made sense when it was part of the Office package, as one thing that an Office user needs, is an email client. Exchange servers had to be hosted by the company. However nowadays, you get the client and the infra for a subscription based model so it was kind of grandfathered in, I guess. If I as a company say I’m not interested in Teams and want to not pay for it as I do not plan to use it, msft will tell me it’s not possible. Therefore, businesses like Slack can never succeed because I as a company will never look at alternatives if I already get a messaging app built into my Office suite.
I dunno, I’m just mumbo jumbing really and not a lawyer (or an EU citizen, for that matter). I just hate Teams.
>Therefore, businesses like Slack can never succeed because I as a company will never look at alternatives if I already get a messaging app built into my Office suite.
I’d like to see evidence of this, because I don’t really believe it in practice. In my experience Office is always installed, but that doesn’t stop companies from also using Google sheets and docs as well, shit I worked somewhere that used Lotus Notes too. Multiple video call services were used at my last job, Zoom and Workplace. I’ve got multiple types of SQL databases that I use daily, SQL Server, Postgres, Oracle, and even sometimes Access which is included in the Office suite. Companies love redundancy.
Not sure exactly what evidence I can show you other then myself being a sysadmin for companies who used the M365 suite and refused to use anything other then teams for communication. Anytime we brought up an alternative (even Zoom) it was always shot down by finance who said “we already have Teams”. Same thing for Slack.
Well… that depends on who you ask. Some say that Teams being a part of the bundle is anti competitive (which it is). Outlook used to be only a mail client, so it made sense when it was part of the Office package, as one thing that an Office user needs, is an email client. Exchange servers had to be hosted by the company. However nowadays, you get the client and the infra for a subscription based model so it was kind of grandfathered in, I guess. If I as a company say I’m not interested in Teams and want to not pay for it as I do not plan to use it, msft will tell me it’s not possible. Therefore, businesses like Slack can never succeed because I as a company will never look at alternatives if I already get a messaging app built into my Office suite.
I dunno, I’m just mumbo jumbing really and not a lawyer (or an EU citizen, for that matter). I just hate Teams.
I think this is a great explanation. Teams really is anti competitive and the way you laid it out made that easier for me to understand.
>Therefore, businesses like Slack can never succeed because I as a company will never look at alternatives if I already get a messaging app built into my Office suite.
I’d like to see evidence of this, because I don’t really believe it in practice. In my experience Office is always installed, but that doesn’t stop companies from also using Google sheets and docs as well, shit I worked somewhere that used Lotus Notes too. Multiple video call services were used at my last job, Zoom and Workplace. I’ve got multiple types of SQL databases that I use daily, SQL Server, Postgres, Oracle, and even sometimes Access which is included in the Office suite. Companies love redundancy.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/22/slack-has-filed-an-antitrust-complaint-against-microsoft-teams-in-the-eu/
Not sure exactly what evidence I can show you other then myself being a sysadmin for companies who used the M365 suite and refused to use anything other then teams for communication. Anytime we brought up an alternative (even Zoom) it was always shot down by finance who said “we already have Teams”. Same thing for Slack.