In my team of 50+ people, the last 2 years since starting this contract have been steady transition to using Teams for all communications. They are now moving to use it for scheduling as well with it being integrated with the rest of the Office suite.
Moreover, the entire hospital system uses it as the defacto means of communication. This makes it incredibly easy to connect with any of the thousands of employees we have immediately in a lot ways.
I don't like Teams or the office suite whatsoever. However, I think the real secret to their sauce is simple: > Ecosystem integration > Cram every feature possible into each product
Those two things alone can makeup for all the deficiencies in Microsoft's products within the marketplace. Their software may be clunky, buggy, and terrible to use but if you have those two factors it will stay dominant imo.
Still better than teams though. (With the caveat that it's only useable on Chrome).
Teams hasn't been crashy, is responsive, doesn't eat memory, etc. At this point I personally cannot point to why there is so much hate for Teams. Either that or my organisation is doing something well to make it work well.
The chat is fucking useless though. We use Slack for that.
Zoom is a dumpster fire.
At least, that's my hypothesis. It's the preinstalled browser debacle all over again.
(and that's just the really basic out of the box usage)
When you use M365 you even get multiple sharepoint-esque instances where there is the subscription one that you get in your general web interface, there is "your own" instance which is the same but more primitive, and then there is a pseudo-instance which is used by all apps (even the web apps) to sort-of aggregate them with infinite loops as a result (some of the interfaces allow you to browse between the instances so you can to into a virtual directory, then go into the same directory but in the other instance, and from there to into yet the same directory again but in the other instance, and so forth).
I actually prefer a network drive over SharePoint because there are fewer lock and sync issues.
Especially compared to Dropbox or Google Drive (or even OneDrive) it’s so hard to use for file sharing.
I literally would prefer mediawiki from the 2000s in terms of ui and support ability.
While some features like versioning and sharing and mail integration vary, nearly all of the 'big' ones do the same thing (OneDrive, iCloud, Google Drive, Dropbox, even box.com and MEGA to some extent).
Ironically, this sameness might actually be a good thing, as it makes it a bit more interchangeable (well, if we ignore the variety in native integrations), it would be pretty bad if there were significant missing features between them.
The more the deep state (nothing about conspiracy theory, it's just the people at the oval office, and their surroundings, mostly industry lobby) want to trust and push Microsoft, the worse it's going to get in the coming years were AI, software and hardware will be the deciding factor for the civilization war we are currently living
> Microsoft insiders worry the Pentagon may walk away from its $22 billion contract for mixed-reality goggles as the device continues to disappoint the military
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-military-hololens-...
I'd say they're equivalent to Big Pharma or Big Oil - all of which have captured any regulatory agency designed to control their misbehaviors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_addres...
You can lobby all you want to cut other types of government 'pork', and you'll probably have some champions in Congress on the same page. Only the military is untouchable. It's un-American to even consider cuts in that sector.
Maybe we can say military-industrial complex? Nice, venerable, well-established phrase, notably popularized by a president during his final words as a president.
Who is banning words? At least in the US you have every right to say 'deep state' all you want but it probably doesn't mean in other people's minds what you might want anymore. I mean, it's the way of language evolution that when a phrase picks up a much different and negative connotation from what it had previously people stop using it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-us-army-combat-hololens...
Looks like Microsoft will have to do in the matter of keeping the state from being too efficient.
Any bad Italian restaurant microwaving stuff is better than Olive Garden.
I like their breadsticks but everything else should not be eaten by humans.
We Teams as part of whatever bundle MS pushes for OS, Office etc, but no one uses Teams, we use zoom. A few people use slack, but it’s not pervasive.
If it wasn’t so buggy and non-performant, does it offer any other advantages or “killer features” by virtue of tighter integration to the MS ecosystem?
This works for them because it focuses product cycles on releasing what "matters" to the customer, but it ends up cutting craft and quality. This makes their products poor to use, but is also what drives revenue into their hands.
They don't really need to be the best or the fastest. They just have to have decent products that aren't the worst (I prefer Teams over Webex), and glom those products together into an affordable package.
For better or worse, Microsoft product suites are like the Olive Garden of the product world.
edit: whoa, got more comments than I thought. For disclosure, I did a brief stint as a PM intern there way back in the day. Wanted to join as a UX designer intern, but got shoe-horned into the PM role