When my organization uses a Microsoft video conferencing product, we use Teams, not "Skype for Business". I have no idea why, as I don't schedule the meetings, but I can say that I can't imagine something sucking worse than Teams.

"Skype for Business" sucks more than Teams. But it's true: it's hard to imagine something like "Skype for Business". I had to use it for a few months when working with a business unit in a different country that were all forced to use it. We were all happy when their business unit's IT department agreed to move them from Skype to Teams.

Teams is the worst. I constantly miss messages, the video calling feature randomly freezes videos of participants, and sometimes my audio doesn't work for no apparent reason. Their Wiki feature sucks, too.

It's also a CPU hog. Why can I watch a 4K video in VLC for hours, but throwing up a couple of 200x100 windows in Teams kills the CPU? I guess Teams is written by interns.

I just think about why would they force video conferencing into SharePoint?

Teams is built on top of Skype for Business, SfB is one of the main backends for them.

They got patent trolled and flinched. They removed the things that made Skype best in class and turned it into just another low quality corporate messenger.

Was it really due to that lawsuit? IIRC the main issue with P2P was that you could discover anyone's IP address by knowing their Skype username. I recall that people used this to DoS people in multiplayer video games - they looked up accounts with roughly the same name as the in-game one and proceeded to drop their connection. It was especially common in League of Legends.

Yep - It was bad enough that it was common practice for people to proxy their skypes through a third party.

(It was pretty nice that Skype let you do that really easily though)

€5.4bn for Nokia and that didn't work out for them either.

Anecdotal: It's still the primary communications thing in my company and probably our customers (telecoms / networks, probably quite archaic).