Seriously, who will change provider because of this. Our institution is so brainwashed and hidebound to Microsoft it would take a lot more than this. It seems like an abusive relationship: the bad times just increase fear generally, so make change less likely.

It's the same with AWS, Cloudflare. There is also this weird effect, often commented on here, where if half the Internet is down, everyone understands when you are down. If I use some random new start up for my infrastructure or services, and it goes down, customers and executives are furious. So it seems we are stuck here.

Microsoft is worse. At least you can entertain the idea of switching between AWS and GCS but moving off outlook or Entra? Not a chance

What's wrong with GMail?

It might not force a change away, but it definitely reduces the chance of people switching to them.

Doubtful.

I think what it will mostly do is hardening existing customers anti-cloud stance. There already was big reluctance by many enterprises to switch to Exchange Online and New Outlook due to lack of feature parity and control, to the degree that Exchange Server SE became a product (with support until at least 2035) and Classic Outlook is still the prescribed Outlook variant in many organizations (with support until at least 2029). I also know of some customers, which migrated back from Exchange Online to on-premise Exchange Server because they were so unsatisfied with it.

This will only make it harder for Microsoft to pull all customers to their cloud offerings. I think in general that's a significant blow to SaaS-ification of the field.

[delayed]

Why?

Do they lose any significant number of customers? Do anybody in leadership get fired?

Do reading the twitter status updates give you the impression of an organization that takes responsibility seriously?

Or do it sound more like an organization that is optimized for evaporating responsibility?

I think this will change nothing.

And why would it? Most people using Microsoft 365 have bullshit jobs anyway. All they do is performative. They are not productive, with or without access to their e-mail and calendar. It doesn't make a real difference.

let me guess, the only real jobs are blue collar ones, and software developers of course, or whatever it is that you happen to do. May as well comment “I’m a bit green behind the ears” and leave it at that.

If anything, it's the opposite. Too many decades in corporate environments to not become cynical. Too many instances of having seen what the man behind the curtain is actually doing.

And I don't exclude myself here by the way. I know what I'm doing, I know what my colleagues are doing, I know what my managers are doing. We're all pretty busy, but our productivity is very low.

how do you figure?

Well, at the very least there's going to be a lot of people pointing at their broken SLAs.

>Do reading the twitter status updates give you the impression of an organization that takes responsibility seriously?

Not implying otherwise, to be clear. Very far from defending MS.

Pointing at SLAs does nothing. Maybe they'll issue a discount or two. Getting rid of Microsoft in a corporate setting is close to impossible.

Many things change if the next generations will select another service because they have a bad impression (correct or not) about something.

Did you personally select anything IBM lately? At some point many years ago, people were saying "Getting rid of IBM in a corporate setting is close to impossible.

Actually it is about the perceived risk distribution within an org, not really about the quality of the product. "No one got fired for buying an IBM" directly tells the decision maker that their risk of getting questioned internally is low due to the brand reputation of IBM. It's a play on risk.

The main problem to get rid of Microsoft, is how they sold their services in the past more related to regulated environments. I worked at a place where we're using Google tools but with AWS as cloud provider, then one time we need to decide which tools we should continue use, the choices were Google and Microsoft. Microsoft won because they already had at the time the better auditable tools to track any single event across them which Google lack up to a certain point, we kept at least AWS though

I wonder if clients will take to court for damages/liability?

No. That is contracted out.

I imagine there is some kind of arbitration included in the service