I worked for an organization where this was the case but most people vastly preferred zoom.

IT went as far as remotely disabling the use of zoom after months of pleading with people not to use it.

This was ostensibly done for security reasons (citing zoom bombing, of all things, coz it was in the news).

When teams had a raft of really bad zero days, of course, nobody in IT batted an eye.

MS reaaaallly got its hooks in to that place.

It made me wonder how startups are supposed to compete with this type of thing. Zoom was free and better liked and it still got shut down.

> This was ostensibly done for security reasons (citing zoom bombing, of all things, coz it was in the news).

I don't think this is without basis? Zoom got some bad press. Unsure if Teams is any better.

Zoom apps sending data to Facebook https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22693792

Zoom lying about e2ee https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25044254

Zoom installer on macOS https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22706650

Zoom rolling its own crypto https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22768494

#2 and #4 are both about Zoom having a botched e2e implementation (it was "e2e", but had server-side key management). That's not really a win for Teams since it doesn't even try to support e2e.

> #2 and #4 are both about Zoom having a botched e2e implementation

I'd reckon Zoom engs know what's e2ee and what's not. I tend to agree with folks who say their sales team purposefully lied to win deals.

The bad press it got looked more like the result of a sustained PR campaign against them than anything natural.

I remember the Facebook thing alone getting about as much airtime as MS's three teams zero days despite being insignificant by comparison.

E2E encryption that isn't properly end to end is newsworthy but it isn't a good reason to justify selecting a competing product that doesn't even try.

I’m actually surprised that Slack hasn’t tried their hand at an email service to combat this. Yes o365 is more than email but that’s their foot in the door. If you cut off that sales vector you make MS have to compete on the merits of their add-on services and they don’t hold up. Notion is a OneNote and Sharepoint destroyers. Zoom and Slack are better than Teams and S4B. Okta and Auth0 are better than ADFS.

FYI ADFS is now going the way of the dodo and being replaced by AAD which does what Okta and Auth0 do already.

Do you know Okta well? I've been looking for product comparisons but the best I came up with was Okta's "Why Choose Okta vs. ADFS?" [1]

And that's just sales talk. It says ADFS needs multiple servers, which it doesn't. At least it depends on your deployment model. And whether AD running on another server constitutes "multiple servers" (of course just as true for Okta).

It also says Okta runs in the cloud. The implication is that ADFS doesnt. Well, like anything, it does.

The remainder talks about low TCO, deployment speed, simplifying AD complexity, and the cloud. All of which are rather subjective.

I say all of this having done some very complex ADFS deployments - at the extreme using Chip & PIN authN, and authR from client workstations assumed to be compromised.

So given the above I'd love to find a compelling and unbiased comparison. Including featureset.

[1] https://www.okta.com/resources/whitepaper/why-choose-okta-vs...

Is ADFS fully managed? I think Okta is competing with Azure AD rather than ADFS.

> I’m actually surprised that Slack hasn’t tried their hand at an email service to combat this.

This either shows that Slack's "email is dead" marketing strategy was very effective (did an important job during a specific period of early growth and they have now moved on) or very ineffective (their main proposition completely passed you by).