Discord > rest of the market
- account setup - sharepoint integration - 'gamer' reputation - (I think) no on-prem solution to keep things off external servers - ease of sending an outlook invite (from native outlook) that immediately comes with a video meeting link.
Teams is a pile of bad software development practices. But it has the correct features to actually be adopted by enterprise. Sadly a large part of those features come from microsoft lock-in and are very hard for competitors to match.
What I found quite notable about Teams is that for all its flaws and issues, the core functionality is very, very solid! Calls never drop, noise suppression is quite good, it’s slow but rarely freezes/crashes etc.
They know very well what would actually disqualify them with people who decide over its usage.
They must have some (in this area very good) project management philosophy the other teams don’t have, as I haven’t seen such a focus on core functionality in any other Microsoft product - bugs in other apps vary randomly in severity, often enough losing you a lot of time or data.
That's funny, because it is exactly the opposite of my experience. Every day I have random issues with MS Teams: Call drops, microphone suddenly "does not work", which can be fixed by rejoining a call, so it cannot have been the microphone, noisy output from other call participants, cannot call anyone who is calling you at the same time, not showing that and not establishing a call when two individuals call each other, not showing any notification about anyone calling when being in a call already and the list probably goes on, as this is just what comes to mind right now.
> They know very well what would actually disqualify them with people who decide over its usage.
In my mind they are long disqualified and if I had a say, I would not even use it at all. So actually they do not seem to know what would disqualify them.