I'm so tired of hearing this argument. The amount of revenue generated by customers who use only Microsoft Teams without an Office365 subscription is exactly $0 [1]. MS gives you exactly 2 options to get teams:

1. Free

2. Included as part of Office365.

Teams is currently eatings Slacks lunch, but the lunch was paid for by a corporate IT guy who switched to Office365 so he could lay off some IT admins and save some money compared to managing an on-premise Exchange server.

[1](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/microsoft-team...)

I don't understand. What argument are you tired of hearing? Teams has more users than Slack. Doesn't matter how/why they got them.

Captive users don't really count.

But lots of Slack users are captive as well (e.g., when CIO licenses Slack for <$FORTUNE_500_CO> )

Slack is expensive, nobody randomly buys it for every employee

They totally do, especially at big companies. You need to show that you made a difference, and rolled out new communication platform for the whole company, not just for 5%.

Really? What's the logic behind that?

Why not?

We don't have _less_ staff due to migrating from Exchange Server to EXO -- quite the opposite (and the remainder of the M365 stack has significantly grown IT, as well).