If Microsoft has managed to make it "just work" (I don't know if they have, but that was the pitch IIRC), then I can understand the enthusiasm. Most of the existing solutions have all the features you need, but fall on their face in the case of reliability and ease of just setting up a meeting. Being able to say "no more 10 minute scrambles at the beginning of meetings to get the tech working" is probably worth a lot.

They do kinda "just work". Less valuable if you'r not on 0365/Skype for Business, but it's a Microsoft product so that makes sense.

This x 1000. It boggles the mind that in the last 20 years most remote meetings/presentations I witnessed involve this kind of futzing.

Speaking of falling flat with this domain of tech, I always felt that way about those Epson smart projectors where you had to use the special battery powered styluses to interact with it. No one ever used them because it was such a hassle to configure for relatively low (sometimes negative) productivity gains. Comparatively, I found the Surface Hubs to be easy enough that any additional effort needed to get up and running is offset by the productivity gains.

You would be astounded to know how many offices are still getting by with a single DLP projector and screen.

That's for the advanced ones. We have whiteboard, which actually are pretty efficient.

Or with a fancier system involving a TV and a high-end camera on top, with a separate tablet-like device for operating it (enabling conference mode etc). Those have a proprietary OS though, don't work with regular Microsoft products.

Integration with Microsoft services is probably a good selling point .

Skype is the big plus. A few jobs ago I was at a place that had a horifically expensive videoconferencing system in the meeting room... that we'd all ignore and use Skype instead, because it worked better.

Also known as 'lock-in' in some contexts.

> Also known as 'lock-in'

It does increase lock-in of course. I would argue that so many companies are already heavily invested in M$ that this is unlikely to affect relative lock-in hugely.

To put it another way, if I'm already in prison and someone buys me a comfy chair, I'm likely to appreciate it.

By that analogy, if you're already in prison then you should be plotting an escape path, not get chummy with the guards.

Interestingly this "lock-in" argument is often used with respect to Microsoft, but not with respect to Apple...

Be fair. I've seen the lock-in argument used all the time here in regards to Apple stuff, particularly in discussions of iOS, macOS, and the App store.

Perhaps it's my surrounding and thus not representative, but when talking about Apple they talk about "integration", while when talking about Microsoft, the word "lock-in" is used - for quite similar things.

by that logic.. if people need oxygen for breathing.. you would consider that a lock-in..

That analogy only works if I was paying for my oxygen. Currently I am not.

I agree. When it comes to hardware, Microsoft has a persistence to stick it out and eventually get it right.