I would say the real reason it "works" for non-tech workers is because they don't have enough bargaining power to reject crap such as Teams and similar Microsoft software, and/or haven't had the chance to try out anything else and don't know what an actually good experience is, while tech workers generally do and reject it as a result (that's why this garbage is non-existent in startups and tech-centric companies).
Spinning it as a tool for non-tech workers is a nice cop-out from the truth which is that non-tech workers merely lack the political power needed to reject this shit (and similar - Windows, etc) just like the vast majority of tech workers do. If those non-tech workers were given a choice, Microsoft's marketshare would significantly shrink overnight.
Enterprises don't go Microsoft Suite because they are primarily good enough. In some categories, there is virtually no competiton and in others, the good enough is tolerable.
Do you really think that if non-tech workers had enough bargaining power they would really waste their time with Slack vs Teams instead of, say, better wages ?
> If those non-tech workers were given a choice, Microsoft's marketshare would significantly shrink overnight.
X doubt. Most people (rightfully so) use their work computer just to work.
Those aren't mutually exclusive - you can fight both for better wages and for better tooling that makes you more productive and your work day less miserable.
> Most people (rightfully so) use their work computer just to work.
That's the issue - people should focus their limited time, brain power and "bullshit tolerance" on actual work stuff rather than wasting it on dysfunctional software. The tools should work and get out of your way as much as possible.
Ask yourself why most tradesmen have 5-figures worth of expensive professional-grade tools in their van? It's not that cheaper, consumer/DIY-grade tools can't do the job at all, but the professional-grade tools will do that job better/easier/quicker and will generally be more reliable and less annoying to use. Tradesmen understand that the more expensive tool is still worth it if it saves on time, frustration and malfunctions and that's why those tools sell despite costing 10x the price of their DIY-grade equivalent.
The equivalent of Teams in the above scenario would be if a beancounter joined a construction company, saw the expensive tooling on the balance sheet and having never ever used a power tool himself, decided to replace it with cheap consumer-grade versions because the Home Depot salesman told him it's just as good.
> That's the issue - people should focus their limited time, brain power and "bullshit tolerance" on actual work stuff rather than wasting it on dysfunctional software.
Exactly. Which is why Excel is king in finance, and not a free alternative with half the important features missing [1]
Microsoft do many things wrong, but they also do many things right, and I suspect that you underestimate a suite that really does contains power tools.
Add to that the deployment story for a big enough company, and it's no wonder why it has such a huge market share.
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/03/23/strategy-letter-iv...
Ben Thompson of Stratechery puts it well:
This is where Teams thrives: if you fully commit to the Microsoft ecosystem, one app combines your contacts, conversations, phone calls, access to files, 3rd-party applications, in a way that “just works”; I explained my personal experience with Teams in a December 2018 Daily Update:
"Here’s the thing, though: Dropbox absolutely is better than One Drive. Google Apps are better at collaboration than Microsoft’s Office apps. Asana is better than Planner. And, to be very clear, Slack is massively better than Teams at chat. Using all of them together, though, well, it sucks: the user experience that matters for me is not any one app but all of them at once, and for the way I want to work, having everything organized in one single place is simply better (and that’s even with the normal spate of maddening Microsoft UI oddities!). In this Teams is less a chat app than it is a file explorer for the cloud generally, and Stratechery LLC specifically."
This is what Slack — and Silicon Valley, generally — failed to understand about Microsoft’s competitive advantage: the company doesn’t win just because it bundles, or because it has a superior ground game. By virtue of doing everything, even if mediocrely, the company is providing a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, particularly for the non-tech workers that are in fact most of the market. Slack may have infused its chat client with love, but chatting is a means to an end, and Microsoft often seems like the only enterprise company that understands that.
It's been my experience, too. M365 really actually just works and Teams and Outlook (for the web) are a pleasure to use.