Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?
Seriously, with all the money and resources thrown at this company and this app, you'd think it'd be a little more stable, faster, and reliable. I am literally forced to use this app at work...
Seriously, with all the money and resources thrown at this company and this app, you'd think it'd be a little more stable, faster, and reliable. I am literally forced to use this app at work...
Or another way to look at it is that the real customers for Teams are IT departments. It makes their lives easier because they don't have to do anything and it meets all the compliance requirements they are supposed to enforce.
Which in turn reflects that the real customers of IT are regulators and auditors. Nobody with decision making power actually cares whether any of the software in use in enterprises works well or not.
Enterprise sales calls these days.
Lots of rules.
Yeah well somehow that got silenced real quick. Microsoft is evil under the surface, with extreme close ties to governments, regulators, ...
It'd be similarly difficult to argue they're acting anti-competitively when Slack is thriving.
How they gained this foothold in desktop productivity software is left as an exercise to the reader.
Why is messaging a new/different market for Microsoft regarding O365? Microsoft has been including business-targeted messaging/collab tools in O365 for years. Skype for Business preceded Slack, let alone Office Communicator or Linc, not to mention Outlook.
Is Slack profitable?
Lookup diapers.com for instance. Amazon sold diapers below cost to gain marketshare, took all customers from diapers.com, those guys went bankrupt, and Amazon upped the prices to higher levels than before.
I am not suggesting breaking up Microsoft and Teams, I am suggesting that giving away Teams for free should not be allowed, it needs to be fairly priced. But Microsoft has good lawyers of course.
At the senior level the role becomes a sales role - you are continuously selling your output, team, product, vision, etc internally to the other execs, board, etc. It's important therefore to present whatever you are producing as exceptional. So you look for indicators that support your pitch. Sales and forecasts are far more important than product. Product is only as important as far as it directly impacts these numbers. And with channels / vertical integration / brand like MS, a core tool like Teams is almost a guaranteed success on these metrics as long as the product kinda works.
And then it's very easy to fall into the trap of buying into your own pitch. When you are continuously repeating how great the product is you begin believe it and ignore criticism, including public opinion. "What matters is the markets opinion not the publics opinion and Teams has huge market share".
So MS execs likely believe Teams to be brilliant, which is probably partly why there isn't the internal urgency to fix the issues.
Also - its a golden goose! Its good enough, generates tons of revenue and fills a strategic product gap. Why take a big risk and refactor it? This could be a disaster.
Takes a very brave, product focused leader to push on despite the above.
As in, you can't sign on to several business organizations like you can in Slack. It's so dumb and disqualifying. Utter nightmare if you work with several organizations.
https://feedbackportal.microsoft.com/feedback/idea/c9995dc8-...
I've bookmarked that page and I check in on it regularly, as Microsoft claims multi-account support is due for late 2022.
I think they were really hoping they could make that cross-tenant thing work where you only have one account that you can use as a guest in other orgs, but that really doesn't reflect how things work in the field (you have separate accounts at each organization).
Refused to use windows for rest of career after that.
There are a bunch of regulations these days. GDPR is just one of them. A lot of tools are just not compliant.
IT departments have to take those into account. Especially at public companies.
Microsoft does a good job at that and tends to make it easy for the IT departments, too
I also wonder what the Schrems court rulings mean about US citizens working in the EU for EU companies, since the US might feel free to give purportedly binding surveillance orders to such citizens; or for EU residents who visit the US while working for EU companies and receive a binding surveillance order while in the US, possibly even with their work equipment and remote access to company PII.
If cutting out US vendors is disruptive, avoiding travel to and remote work from the US, and avoiding hiring (or being subject to hierarchical oversight from) US citizens in Europe would be even more so.
As a US citizen who is about to move to Europe myself, my preferred solution would of course be for the GDPR to be followed strictly and for the US to change its laws. But I'm really not expecting the US to pass that kind of legislation now.
See https://www.atlassian.com/migration/assess/compare-cloud-dat...
You better start scheduling your migration.
Same as any other product in the world.
JIRA, just like Teams, is slow, bloated, still won't fix basic issues and largely exists to appease managers. You have to actively work to make JIRA a pleasant experience. It's too easy for most management to make it hell.
I've worked on teams where I just threw info into a card, and it was acceptable to use, and I've worked on teams where commits had to have a JIRA tag associated or the commit got rejected, including in instances where bitbucket was timing out it's call to JIRA. In the latter cases, I prayed for Atlassian's swift destruction, but alas, was never answered.
So like a lot of tools, it's how you use it, mostly. That said, as far as universal problems, cloning cards has to be one of the worst UX experiences I run into on the job with any frequency that I can't just fix myself. If the web app needs to await a successful or failed clone of a record (or series of them), I'm not sure why they can't implement a modal or a spinner or other component to tell the user that something is happening, then either navigate the user to the new card, or ask the user if they would like to view the new card. Shooting off a process that you say could take an indeterminate amount of time then dropping eventually a completion notification and link in the bottom left panel is just about the least helpful way to communicate that information.
edit: unrelated meta comment, but it's funny as hell to me that this question got 4 replies in the few minutes it took me to write this reply, all within 10 minutes of the original. People are really out here just waiting for a chance to complain about JIRA. Myself included it seems. Makes me feel a bit bad, hate to pile on to popular sentiment when others have already commented in a similar direction.
Finding a 'bug' introduced by someone from 4 years ago who doesn't work there any more, then finding the particular ticket that spawned it... this has never been high on the priority list of anyone I've ever worked with.
Also more than mildly useful for devs doing porting work.
Commit comments are rarely substantive enough, and "asking relevant people" is nice but not an actual substitute for keeping meaningful records.
Commit message: "Improved clarity and detail in error message"
Ok, that's obvious what's happening, and as a standalone change that's absolutely fine. But the question it doesn't answer is why did someone actually put that effort in?
If the commit message mentions a ticket, then you can go look that up, and now you can find out, for example: it was a ticket that was an unknown bug being experienced by one specific customer, and so the error message was being improved as part of tracking down the bug. You also see who the customer was, internally who reported/escalated it, how long this has been an issue for, and if the bug was found and eventually fixed or not.
I'd argue absolutely none of that belongs in comments in the code, and it's way too onerous for a dev to constantly put that level of detail into every commit message. It's a balance: it's only useful to lookup that info on a small fraction of commits; it takes a lot of time to figure it out when missing (especially if it was many months ago); and putting a ticket number in each commit message is very low effort.
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Log entries
missing package json
missing package json
ttl in seconds
cache back on
Still, I'd rather try to convince people to write useful messages than hard bind my remote code repository to my system for managing work, and often times (but certainly not always), single line commits are self explanatory.
Which customer? Is it the same issue as the one this other customer is reporting? How does the support person know the fix has been released?
Unless you are expecting devs to copy paste a tonne of info into commit messages, it's way easier to just put the god damn ticket number in the commit title.
If you really need to commit something with no ticket, just have a dummy ticket placeholder like DEV-0000.
99/100 it's just laziness on the devs part... It's way easier to add a ticket number than write super detailed commit messages, and every case of missing Jira numbers of seen, there has never been a detailed commit message in its place... /Rant over
Yes, that's what devs should do. Or link to an issue from the git provider. Commit messages shouldn't contain customer information, they should contain fine grained information why the change fixes a particular issue and other technical minutae.
What you doing here is conflating business information and technical information. Business knowledge has no reason to be in commit messages. The code base should be 100% understandable without specific knowledge about what customer wanted what. It would be a huge red flag for me to see those things talked about in the context of the commit messages as a regular thing.
As always there can be exceptions but if this is normal operating procedure for your company I would run far and fast.
I'm of the opinion the only time this should ever happen is if it's a critical fix to allow ci builds to succeed. E.g. unit tests with hard-coded assumptions about the external world (current date etc.) that stop being true. Or errors in pipeline scripts that occur due to changes in a build agent.
Did I mention that you can't look at JIRA from a mobile phone?
If you configure it to be reasonable -- keep the workflows very simple with few to no validation rules -- it can be fine to use. The temptation seems to be locking down admin access to managers, and then the admins going crazy building workflows like "these 19 custom fields must be filled out to start" "items must go through a QA step" "QA users are the only people that can approve that step" and "PMs are the only ones that can close a ticket". This quickly gets out of hand and makes it horrible to use.
It also depends on the people using it -- garbage in garbage out, as they say. If people write good tickets (concise titles, format the body, remove irrelevant crap, and properly fill out meta fields like fixVersion) it is much more useful. JQL is awesome, and embedding tickets and JQL queries of tickets into Confluence is awesome (hint: easy way to make release notes) -- but both of these require non-garbage ticket content.
After my company switched to Teams, my IT department became much more productive because the amount of needless interaction with other people decreased.
And we were not affected by that shit, since we share the same office anyways. Who needs a messenger when you can shout ;)
> And Teams performs by far the worst at that 90%.
is exactly the reason for:
> the amount of needless interaction with other people decreased.
Simply put: nobody wants to touch teams, so they only do this when absolutely necessary (and even then chances are they will just send an email).
Teams is chosen in companies where the organization is so big that "unification" is seen as a big plus.
What you're out after, are smaller organizations where choices are made based on what people working with those things actually want to use.
So look for headcount rather than what chat program they use, because the headcount will affect more choices than just what chat program you'll end up having to use.
But sometimes specific products are simply less than ideal no matter how they're used. I consider Teams to be one of those.
This doesn't mean that Slack is better than anything else, it's just better than Teams. Truth be told, even sending a letter by mail is better than Teams.
- slack great for - huddle collaboration - chat threads - searching chats - focused chat layout
- teams great for - sharing video of eachother - taking control of screen share (no need to futz with asking someone to stop sharing when they already vocally told you to share, most sharers aren’t trying to steal the screen from you as devs) - reactions / emojis when you want to react silently
Maybe Teams is an Intel make work program? Have it run slow on all but the most expensive new Intel processors?
I would rather just go back to IRC.
This model is not by any means entirely accurate but it's been an extremely effective heuristic.
There are real resources behind Microsoft Teams and a lot of people want it to be good. They may not get much of a signal about how well their product is doing compared to competitors because lock-in effects, but I can guarantee you the product managers and executives at Microsoft want the product to work well.
> executives at Microsoft want the product to work well.
IMO, everyone wants the product to work well (except probably competitors).
So why doesn't it?
I'm aware this is not an answer either :-)
Because microsoft saw competitors that look scary and so decided they needed an all new project released in a hurry. If they have been willing to spend a few years before release they could have a good product, but instead they rushed things to production.
Lync (later skype for business) worked pretty good, but lacks a lot of features (others have mentioned various chat things before then). If they had invested in that all along they probably could have made a stable teams, but the temptation is to call something done and milk profits out of it until you are behind someone more innovated.
They may not know how it works at my company, but it can't be that different.
I wouldn't. But surely there's someone here that actually knows? It does seem hard to believe their own engineers would put up with all the issues it has.
Edit: the only evidence I could find you're right was at https://www.microsoft.com/insidetrack/blog/new-microsoft-tea.... But whether it's the primary tool their devs use for communication I don't know.
Really? So they have to know how awful it is. That makes its continued awfulness even more perplexing.
VS code is another crappy electron app. Why anyone would want to use electron for a text editor is beyond me.
C#/.NET are crap. Especially .NET. And a programming language that is not cross-platfrom is a joke. I know they have made some efforts to get it to work on other OS's but those are just as crappy as all their other stuff.
Nothing wrong with typescript, but I don't really see it as any kind of innovation. It's just JS with some guardrails.
MS cannot even work out there messenger strategy properly. We have/had MSN messenger, Skype, Skype for business, Lync and now Teams.
What makes you think the execs in MS really care about messaging?
Microsoft 365 absolutely is something of a buffet for companies/orgs with IT budget constraints and compliance-heavy objectives.
Just more stuff that sort of works and ticks boxes, starting with hosting almost everything in the EU for European customers. Compare that to Google, who flat-out refuses to guarantee EU-only hosting for Workspace customer.
All the bundled extra tools outside e-mail and the absolute core M365 Office apps just sit there, ready to use, easy to package and deploy to clients. All generated user data is stored in the MS environment every stakeholder has signed on to. From OneNote, MS Todo to Teams, everything's integrated without as much as configuring SSO externally.
A lot of what's included, Teams specifically, is shockingly bad. But these elements tick very important boxes. And very few people seem to care about the rest. UX isn't a compliance-mandated requirement.
I sort of know this, as I work at a company that has to punch above its weight in compliance, due to industry specific requirements.
If you need good single-sign-on for Slack, you end up paying the now Salesforce-owned company over USD 10/month, just for Slack. If you want decent data retention controls for Slack, you need their Enterprise Grid plan, the price of which is unlisted, but I've heard it's like USD 25/month/user(!). Just for Slack.
Same with Atlassian. The decent handful of dollars you pay per user only applies if you're ok with shockingly limited controls.
With Microsoft, you get a lot for just buying M365. You can get started building a soundly logged and controlled environment if you put everyone on M365 Business Premium (including desktop apps) and/or F3 licenses (web/mobile apps only) for about 20 and 10 dollars respectively.
Sure, you do pay through the nose for the really good logging capabilities with M365 E5 licensing, something close to USD50 per user/month, which is a lot, but it also includes everything from Defender antivirus, InTune device management, Teams telephony call-in support to a Windows Enterprise client license.
There's so much included with M365 in terms of compliance and bundle value that Microsoft absolutely can leave it absolutely terrible UX condition, so they do.
Shouldn't there be a level where some people will find the pain of the shittiness so great that they'll step outside of the Microsoft ecosystem whereas other people will accept the shit in exchange for the ease of staying inside the Microsoft ecosystem.
If that's true - and I don't know if it is - it seems like the leg up that Teams gets for being part of Microsoft doesn't help nearly so much as it should. Though truthfully in order to compete with Microsoft's entrenchment you don't just need "not shitty" you need a product that's got something going for it that's weirdly compelling. See Linux on servers or Google Chrome on the desktop.
This happened at a company I worked at. There was practically a war between IT support trying desperately to force people to use Teams and the people who had picked up Zoom and quite liked it trying to stay using it.
After a grace period where IT pleaded, whinged and begged, the Windows laptops were ultimately locked down such that zoom couldn't be installed or run at all and everybody was finally shifted on to Teams.
This was all done in the name of security, citing such high profile transgressions "Zoom's end to end encryption isn't working as advertised!" and "omg zoombombing sometimes happens if you don't password protect your room!" were cited. Stories like this were circling the news at that time.
Later on when Teams was bludgeoned by several zero days that were orders of magnitude worse, nobody batted an eye of course, and that story didn't get much airtime.
Microsoft had its claws deep into that company. I suspect they have a pretty good PR team as well.
But aside from that it’s really close to being a good enough chat option that Slack doesn’t feel necessary.
Google Meet is already good. Gmail is excellent and the calendaring system is best in class.
They fix the chat UX issues and it’s going to be interesting.
Left that company (a fortune 50) ~roughly when Teams began rolling out, and my coworkers complained to no end (Slack -> Teams migration happened roughly when i joined). I still complain about Teams - but outside of raw IRC Teams is by far the best messaging App I've used at work. (I do also run slack/discord for personal groups/projects, though nothing at crazy scale).
As for Teams being awful. It has problems. But all non native desktop apps do and that includes Slack and Discord. I use both Teams and Discord daily and they are about equal in frustration.
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msteams/forum/all/freeze...
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msteams/forum/all/pausin...
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/tech-community-ideas/...
Thinking about it, what offers from Microsoft are not used just because somebody must use it...Or their company got it for free?
^this just isn't true. There's three camps of people. 1) The people who use Teams today and think it works just fine, they even enjoy it and find it simple to use (these people exist). 2) The people who use teams but are annoyed by many small issues that together cumulate to a poor UX. 3) People who will never like Teams for many reasons but make a point about being as vocal as possible about their hate.
Decision makers and leaders care about 1 and 2, which imho is good. I do agree that Teams isn't perfect and I also agree that it plays best, for now, with IT ecosystems. That said, end user love is critical and I think fixing that for group 2 will only help to secure Teams' undeniable comp advantage.
Then Microsoft came out with Communicator, renamed it to Lync, which was a corporate messenger/meeting software. It used its own server, that could federate outside. It worked very well. They added LiveMeeting as a separate app for meetings, built on the same protocols. Our company used it with the "roundtable" camera from 2008, and it all worked amazingly well. We had meetings with people joining in from home and other offices over the internet using inexpensive webcams, 15 years ago.
Then they bought Skype and it went downhill from there. I don't know what happened, but they took a lot of time integrating technologies from Skype (peer-to-peer) with their own tech (which was more telecom/server based) and tried competing with ever-changing perceived competitors by copying parts of their features and UI, without ever making any feature really good. They integrated everything into a single program, Skype for Business, now renamed Teams, and made it bloated and obnoxious. Just try to get it to not start at login... It's like MSN all over again.
I think the Communicator/LiveMeeting software combo they had 15 years ago would still (conceptually) do pretty well as messenger/meeting software now, when modernized. It was much less intrusive and behaved like nice software that you actually wanted to use.
I have gone to the trouble of installing a Sharepoint application. The idea that people are doing this who do not want a directory tree as 99.99999% of what they do is insane.
God, why do PMs push this crap. Like users are picking their communication software of the day based on what pops up into their face.
If I don't think some company's messenger application should run in the background on startup, it should not run in the background on startup.
For the majority of people it makes sense to have a comms app always running as they come to expect that from the smartphones.
Granted, there should be an easy way to configure this behavior for advanced users.
In contrast, I see a computer as a general purpose machine. Sure, I don't turn off the WiFi of my laptop, or the router/AP from my house, but those are means to many ends. When I want to check mails on my computer, I launch Thunderbird, and when I want instant mesaaging, I use whatever program/WebApp I need.
[0] As I am now doing, writing a comment in HN is a PITA in a smartphone.
Same thing with Signal. I routinely take/place calls with friends and family through the desktop client. If I'm on my computer and I've got my computer headset on, I might as well take the call on the computer instead of taking off the headset and using yet another device.
As my computer is a general purpose device, one of its many purposes is also a communications device.
Or do you leave it connected for long stretches of time to be ready to take an incoming call?
If you had a desk phone did you unplug it until you were going to make a call?
That would be a slightly different way of accomplishing what I already do (silence everything on my phone, and in general, try to prevent it from bugging me when I'm not actively using it).
It wouldn't be a bad approach at all if it made the phone shut the fuck up. The smartphone is one of the best examples on the market of product managers mistaking addiction triggers and "engagement" metrics for evidence of good user experience.
Yes, I do (effectively). My phone spends a large percentage of the day in airplane mode.
There are many people who need more personal discipline to not contact people constantly, but the software itself should be ready for the times when they should contact you, interrupting whatever it is you were doing.
Regardless of software, I decide when I'm available to be contacted... not somebody else.
I already mute all notifications/ringtones on the phone when I want to focus, why should we also start doing this on computers?
Pessimist view: Companies gain the ability to covertly track presence, which isn't feasible if Teams is left to the user to open.
You will get less done in total, but what you do get done is so much more valuable to humans as a whole that it is worth the loss of focus. It was a real mind blower when I realized that, I still get frustrated at times with my inability to get hard things done quickly, but in return I get much more important things done with the help of others.
That's a nice hypothesis. do you happen to have some research or such regarding this. that could be a nice read :)
And it seems you agree with the original intent of my message. There is a time a place for being focused/left alone. And it's not up to a piece of software (or other humans) to decide this on a permanent basis.
also regarding "You will get less done in total, but what you do get done is so much more valuable to humans as a whole that it is worth the loss of focus."
It's funny because I have the opposite experience. Guess everybody is different in this regard.
I hope every time you are in public (and even in your private life) that you are accosted by randos who are over eager to share whatever drivel comes to their mind. And if you complain they will retort with "as a human you need to be available to communicate with others the vast majority of the time".
Please answer ever spam caller, every JW/door-to-door salesman. You _need_ this. Please post your personal contact details in every public space. Everyone NEEDS to communicate with you. It's not up to you. It's up to them. They must be able to communicate with you whenever it suits them.
Quite sad to see the internet continuously being shrunk down to the lowest common denominator, some federated efforts like the fediverse make me quite hopeful, a shame most of them mimick twitter.
Google tries many new products (in-house developed or acquired). If it does not reach a user base of several 100 million users (or 10's of billions of revenue) after a few years then they will scrap it.
Google was not the giant then that it is now.
Making a social network like Google+ be invite-only when everybody was already on Facebook was an absolutely bone-headed move and I think was THE driving factor for its failure.
There were so many memes about people finally getting an invite to Google+ and then discovering nobody was there. Without your friends on it, you're not going to make it part of your daily routine, and eventually just forget about it entirely. By the time it wasn't invite-only anymore, the hype was gone and Google+ had already been considered to be a joke.
It quickly became a cesspool of racism, child porn, and other illegal activity, mostly by Brazilians, who bullied everyone else off the platform
What made Facebook great was that it encouraged users to share personal information (including pictures and bio items) and then made it easy for everyone to anonymously take part of this information.
You could look at pictures of your crush in cute outfits or co-workers in embarrassing situations. You could read about the layoff your ex' new partner had to endure. You could see where the cool kids had their coffee. All of this at any time of day, and nobody but you would know that you knew.
It's the ultimate low-key stalking tool and it was designed this way from the start, because early on they understood that's what people want.
I don't remember the exact quote but I do know one of the early decisions was that photos ought to be open by default and you shouldn't be able to tell who has looked at them -- in contrast to many other social networks at the time.
I think a large part of it was also the digital photo and smartphone revolution. Instagram did that a little better, but posting straight to Facebook was a little better than what... Photobucket? Personal hosting? Emails with mass CC? It just solved that problem so well for not only the big event pictures we'd traditionally throw in an album, but also adhoc slice-of-life moments.
It also gave that power to businesses, humanising them in a way that hadn't been possible before, and that's where the money came in.
Yes, precisely. This is my point entirely, that ego, vanity, pride, conceit and narcissism is what motivates these individuals to want and need to share personal details with complete strangers, and this is the entire point of Facebook, to beguile its members with a platform of opportunity to indulge in symptoms of personality disorder and character flaw.
It was just ripe for when internet became a plausible soil for society.
Let's think about discord for a minute, why is everyone using it? And what are they using it for? I think the answers here are rather simple, people have a need for communication with peers; this communication usually takes many forms: text, voice, video, gifs, images. Discord is a platform that offers people a very simple and quick way of building communities capable of providing people will all of these forms of communication but really, now a days, every messenger application does the job. So the differentiating factor for discord is the ability to organise these communities better than any other platform (save for slack, which discord modelled itself after). Now, it's not perfect, it's impossible to build horizontal communities on discord but it does the job.
So functionally, discord offers people seeking to build communities pretty much everything they could want. Now, it still has some problems: mainly that it's not very good for long-form or persistent messaging like a forum. And this is why you usually have discord communities with a reddit counterpart, a forum-like website and a real-time interaction community.
This let discord built a very wide userbase, and once you have that then you really get to enjoy the magic sauce: network effects. To put it simply, people use discord because everyone else uses discord and everyone else uses discord because people use discord.
As the internet grows it becomes increasingly difficult to break network effects even if you have an offering that's better. But even then, it's also extremely difficult to be novel given that these big companies can simply acquire you when they start seeing you as a threat (look at adobe buying figma). Companies are quicker than regulators at seeing potential market disruptions and threats, so in most cases they can stay ahead of the game. Imo, a lot of the failings of these companies come from underestimating the competition and then trying to play catch-up.
This seems to be fairly common and it seems that as these applications and companies rise and fall that they each bring there own flavor to the mix.
Google maps was concise in 2012, today the app requires a greater number of user inputs to enter a destination for example
Eventually good chat program runs out of runway, gets acquired (wow look at that userbase!) or needs to monetize on their own, and becomes the bad chat program. And the cycle continues.
Technically, reddit and Discourse is more like forums, but a lot of things that would have been a forum 15 years ago are now Discord "servers".
Reddit and Discord piled the dirt on top and added the headstone.
There may be some contexts where that's true, but overwhelmingly I've seen Discord replacing forums, particularly for small, closed groups. Wheereas I've never so much as heard of any group adopting a private subreddit! But tons have ended up with a discord as their central social point (whether or not they need or use the voice feature).
I've seen this especially in gaming circles (guilds, clans, etc.) and to a lesser extent in other hobbies or in patient support groups.
I know discord isn't a good match for the technical features of forums, but it seems to be a good fit for how people actually used them.
It was really really awesome.
The biggest problem came from the fact that we had been all in a discord server in the past that was deleted by the owner after a political disagreement. So in order for that to not happen again we wanted to have a more "community owned" system so that no one would be able to wield such power without some degree of community acceptance.
Sadly, it was not possible to do such a thing on discord as there ALWAYS has to be an owner to the server that's a single individual. Some of these problems can be solved through bots (you can implement very good voting bots) but you're always fighting against the natural structure of the platform, so no solution is ideal.
I don't think it's ever been sold as like, a general purpose chat platform like IRC or Discord...it's a shame a bunch of OSS projects decided to settle on Slack for their community chat.
Well, for me they were never replaced. I still frequent them regularly for some of the best communities and community-based support around (eg. fortunately vendors of my 3D printing and PCB manufacturing equipment host good ones).
Discord recently added Forum Channels to try and capture this segment as well.
https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/6208479917079-...
I think the best approach to a mix of forum and discord-like communities is the app "aether.app" though it had a weird protocol behind it and has been abandoned. But the UI/UX although still perfectible seemed to hit a very nice sweet-spot for me.
From my experience there's a split, more "generalist" forums did get "replaced" by reddit, by subs such as technology, games, news, etc. More "in-depth" forums where you expected to see the same guys working on something or having matches together etc I've seen being almost always replaced by discord:fighting games forums(even for games with good MM), dev/security/cracking forums, really anything that isn't "mass appeal".
ning?
> Original skype would probably work better than zoom does today with a few tweaks
When it came out, Skype was amazing because it let you get video calls on your computer. The audio was flaky (I paid for a number for a work line and yeah - wasn't good!), the video broke up all the time, and it dropped out a lot. But we were new to video calls that worked at all and it seemed like a miracle!
Now a few years later there's a zillion ways to do a video call, and Skype itself doesn't seem to be as good as it once was. I really wonder what on earth happened.
A lot of things really, really were. Some weren't.
Generally speaking, I do think that modern software tends to be worse in terms of usability, robustness, and resource usage. But it tends to be prettier and have more "features", so that's something.
15 years ago I'd reboot nightly because things were more stable.
20 years ago I debugged an issue in the JVM where it was deleting any file it touched (http://nicklothian.com/blog/2003/08/13/a-java-bug-worthy-of-...).
25 years ago it was normal for a computer to crash multiple times a day and wasn't uncommon for files that had been saved to get corrupted by a crash.
So yeah, very happy with modern software reliability.
Even today they feel modern.
I still remember the jingle : " ta-dat-dat " with the screen shaking.
The tube monitors with that square screens, that could heat a whole room.
I remember using cheat engine and sending infinite nudges to friends. Good times.
Luckily, there was Pidgin/Adium, so we could have one app to talk all the protocols.
I'd go back to those days in a heartbeat, and I was there.
Trillian (propritary) released July 1, 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillian_(software)
What they turned it into / replaced it with was such a depressing step backwards.
Interchange was a java client, that fundamentally spoke standard IRC to IRC servers, but also used extra external databases to auto-connect users to channels and secure sensitive channels. The client also forced real names (via Active Directory), and was hardcoded to only connect to the UBS IRC servers.
The IRC servers themselves were altered to only allow Interchange clients to connect[1] and to only allow approved bots in channels most of which did full chat logging for compliance purposes.
Interchange was so slow it was nicknamed 'Interchug'.
The IRC server network spanned the UBS WAN network globally, and all staff were encouraged to use it. For the era, no other large banking corporate had anything similar running (officially).
Source: I worked in UBS IT during this period.
---
[1] Although the more enterprising of us just HEX edited mIRC to report the Interchange client name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_NetMeeting
A very good VOIP / videoconferencing / white-boarding / application sharing client present on almost all Windows computers, open standards interoperable, with an official ActiveX Control and public API. You could easily embed it into your HTML site (IE compatible only), or drag and drop it into your Visual Basic / Delphi / Microsoft Office script application and thus effortlessly embed and control the functionality into your own website/application.
https://news.microsoft.com/1996/09/30/microsoft-ships-netmee...
I remember using NetMeeting in late 97 or early 98 on a 33.6 kbps modem. One of the most memorable parts was the area were you could find other random people to chat with on audio. I had many enjoyable conversations with various people on there, something that I don't think would work well today with the increased number of horrible netizens.
What do you mean "end"? We still use it!
In italy we do ample use of sending audio messages. This doesn't work with sms.
It's also why iMessage hasn't taken off. We are used to things working cross platform, the iMessage lock-in doesn't interest people as it isn't providing much convenience for its limitations.
I heard that originally sms wasn't meant to be a consumer product, it was just so technicians could test or communicate. Then the telco's realized people like texting more than calling (people prefer async sometimes, weird because comms mainly developed from async to sync), and decided to charge a limb for it.
I add a data point on costs and volumes. I have a 90 GB monthly data cap on my phone but I have only either 100 or 1000 free SMS per month, can't remember because I don't use them. I'm probably not sending 1000 messages per month (but it's only 33 per day), definitely more than 100. I don't want to discover that I run out of messages on the 22nd of September so I won't be using them as a hidden transport in a chat app.
And that's ignoring that niche it filled where people were identified by emails, and the particular social rules of knowing that if you went online, it meant you wanted to spend a while talking to people and were available to do so. Discord is kind of similar in that last aspect, but it's enormously complex for the average user and intended for servers, not for 1 on 1 conversations with your contacts. I've always wanted to build a clone of Messenger just because of how much I miss it.
THAT was what was needed for mobile devices. I remember trying to use MSN messenger when I was on WAP and it sucked. And then I remember Skype on iPhone sucked for messages too. SMS also wasn't great if you were remotely international and had friends and family not in the same country as you.
It took two whole years for Skype to rearchitect away from peer to peer (understandably so).
To this day, when you want guaranteed delivery, in order and without duplicates WhatsApp runs circles around its competitors.
Compare that with Slack which both on desktop and mobile regularly has weird issues with successfully delivering a message.
Ultimately avatars are nice to have and later on top of a reliable messaging service but otherwise I'd take boring old text over flaky rich messaging every day of the week.
idk about slack et.al. but telegram does that with native clients for linux, android, ios and windows. even media-sync is pretty much flawless ime.
I was at Skype at the time, working on this very migration, so maybe I can shed some light on what happened.
There were a number of failures (on Microsoft part mainly) that made the whole thing collapse:
- The original Skype developers were used to program in C++ with on-premise Linux servers. When the migration plan came in, the tech stack switched to C# on Azure. Most developers were not really keen or experienced working with C# and Windows. Azure was very much beta at the time, I remember the philosophy was "eat your own dog food" which created an insane amount of frustration working with sub-par tooling, little to no documentation, plenty of bugs on Azure. There is also a mentality/philosophy shift of working with C#/Windows coming from C++/Linux which was not great for team morale.
- Support for group chat was paramount, which meant there was a need of transition from peer to peer to client server.
- The original Lync team was very much annoyed with the rebranding and migration plan and was not really keen on helping Skype developers. I remember us receiving a "dump" of the Lync VCS as tech reference, in the form of a big fat multi GB archive. There were tons of binaries, even videos in there... Lot of fun...
- MS/Lync used a _huge_ amount of proprietary SIP extensions to have Lync work.
- The migration to the cloud and client-server model was accompanied by a huge migration to a brand new microservices in C# project. It meant recoding everything in a new language, a new platform, a new protocol, dealing with hundreds of half baked microservices in a half baked cloud platform. It was slow, buggy, and an architect astronaut fest.
- Overall 99% of the original Skype calling team resigned and joined Twilio.
- Pretty much every manager from MS that I have seen at Skype stayed no more than a year then rotated to a new role, at one point we had 4 changes of management in 2 years.
- Every single interaction with Microsoft management was surreal. Pardon my language, but they were not technical at all, unable to understand the most basic architecture proposals, bullshitting tech talk 9 words out of 10,and overall they were living in an other planet in terms of market share and branding. You could definitely tell that they were talking "product" and "objectives" for Skype, but never used it, understand it's competition, challenges, etc. Pure bozos.
In the end I think Microsoft still extracted some value from Skype, mainly:
- Skype had good PSTN contracts worth a lot of value. The matching engine to select the cheaper one dynamically had value too, and historical data.
- The brand itself had value for customers.
Depth of org in a company is logN(number of employees) where N is the number of reports a manager has. At Microsoft there's order of 100K full time employees and N is about 10, so depth is about 6. This seems fairly unremarkable to me, though obviously there are other ways to do it.
We were folded into the Skype org, with Tony Bates -who I maintain had no idea what he was doing- reporting to Ballmer. Fine. But he and his henchman (Mark something?) embarked on a quest to make everyone do by-the-book Scrum. That, screwing around with corelib, and the ill-omened liveid migration process meant that Skype didn't improve in any way users cared about for several years. Meanwhile, the competitive landscape changed and the only Skype feature anyone ever used - being able to call your grandma in another country for cheap or free - lost its differentiation. It was clearly over by the time my mom told me she had whatsapp.
Nobody I knew had any animus towards Skype engineers and we were entirely willing to help... but what anyone actually wanted was kind of unclear.
I can't believe they managed to kill this amazing product.
I do feel like FB is being killed in the same way, as it was an amazing product for many years and has slowly become ads and unrelated content in a noisy newsfeed :( I really think FB should go back to its roots and simplify the interface and go back to the chronological timeline.
I don't understand why product feel that they need to change to stay relevant. They should just launch other products instead of changing what works well.
I still remember older versions of Skype, which felt usable and rock solid. I actually used some from I think http://www.oldversion.com/windows/skype/ back in the day for my personal stuff, because the reworked UI was just worse.
But nowadays, I don't really care that much, whether I have to use Skype, Teams, Zoom, Slack, Discord, Jitsi, Mattermost, Rocket.Chat or something else - all of the communication tools out there feel viable, just none are excellent.
That said, WhatsApp feels like it's an order of magnitude faster (on mobile) than Signal and Telegram somehow (privacy implications aside, it's still one of the more popular ways to chat with people in the EU), which I found interesting. Of course, it's generally for chatting, not necessarily team collaboration (where you'd want channels and workspaces). On the desktop, however, generally you're just dealing with packaged browser apps most of the time.
I do feel like mentioning how nice having self-hostable non-cloud options is when you need them, be it Nextcloud Talk or the aforementioned Jitsi, Mattermost, Rocket.Chat or something else.
But since it is mostly a network effects game and the setup of keys may be somewhat of putting I am not very optimistic.
Its' a shame though...
Although there was a little bit of integration between SfB and Skype, (and between SfB and Teams as well) - so could communicate from one to the other.
Although Skype for Business Online was phased out in favour of Teams, the on-prem version still exists, probably for those customers that cannot/will not use Teams for regulatory/compliance reasons, and no end of life date has been announced for the on-prem version yet.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groove_Networks?wprov=sfla1
I do remember everybody using Skype, it was so popular it created a verb of its own, we used to skype with each other. Microsoft paid what was an enormous amount for it back then, then basically let it rot. Really surprising.
The exception for this, is private channels (the ones with little padlocks next to their names). These are created in their own isolated SharePoint site outside of the parent "teams" SharePoint site. It's done this way because the access security around teams/channels is the SharePoint security system. It's a totally nuts way to do it.
Teams is basically built using existing MS technologies in the same way that incorrect LEGO bricks can be forced together if you try hard enough.
I don't think MS have the ability to build an application from ground up anymore.
---
[1] The one upside of this, is that if you only care about the files held in Teams, you can "Sync" the site to your PC, and it appears as a virtual folder in File Explorer.
They didn't just let it rot. They actively ruined it.
It's way better than teams in core features, although integrations are missing, and it doesn't have call functionality.
- Backtick formatting in a chat post only works after typing the closing backtick, deleting it, re-typing it
- Text copied from a conversation is polluted with names and time stamps. "I really want this feature" said nobody ever
- The mute/unmute button is hard to find, I don't think I've ever attended a Teams meeting without someone struggling with this. Teams should change its name to "You're on mute"
- Multiple windows, I never know which is the 'main' window, which is the meeting window, where are they, which has focus
- Too hard to know which chat you're replying to, who is in it
- Updates in chats are not consistently acknowledged, you have to change focus, and back again. Even then the "Activity" tab still shows unread items that I have read
- Random crashing
- Random communication freezes, everyone else is chatting, I don't see any updates nor notification of any problems until I restart the app
- "Reply" is sometimes in the chat context menu, sometimes not.
- Media handling is inconsistent, sometimes I can't paste photos, sometimes I can
- The size of the text chat column in a meeting cannot be changed and is very narrow, forcing you to find the same chat in the 'main' window
- can't copy an image from a chat and use it elsewhere; you have to find the download button, download it, go to your download folder, so people just screenshot the image in chat
I think this has something to do with the input format of the file being pasted. I’ve been able to work around this by first copying the image I want to share into WordPad and then into Teams.
I also don’t know if this is a policy set by my IT department to reduce the bandwidth consumption from external aniGIFs.
- Image uploads to a chat failing for no apparent reason
- No obvious way of sharing/reposting an image or document from another chat
- Fries CPU and GPU on video calls, making it difficult to use other applications or demo when screensharing
- Interacts unfavourably with at least some WiFi drivers leading to unidirectional and bidirectional losses of connectivity
- Copy and paste randomly break so you can't copy content from Teams or paste anything into it; applies to both text and images
- Doesn't honour setting not to automatically restart which makes it hard to kill when it needs to be restarted
- Automatic restart means it often restarts before it's cleanly shutdown leading to reoccurrence of the problem you tried to kill it for in the first place, or other random bugs and instabilities
- Too slow to start up and load channels: show the cached content immediately - stop blocking on bloody network calls like it's the 1980s and you've never written any code that calls over a network before
- Causes system instability on video calls with multiple participants
- No feedback on image paste/upload: is it uploading or not? You don't know. Leads to images that you thought hadn't worked just randomly appearing in the middle of typing - not very helpful. Put a placeholder (ideally correctly sized) where the image will go on the client whilst it's uploading and then get out of the way.
- Doesn't seem to be possible to resize/rescale images
Could think of plenty more but I should do some work.
(And, despite all of the above, it's still probably the best of a bad bunch - Hangouts call quality is often terrible, and Zoom is just a complete mess when it comes to anything beyond the basic video calling functionality.)
- eats your battery like nothing else. Got charge? Not if teams has anything to do about it. Discord does more, at better quality and doesn't eat that much power.
- has some bizarre interaction with the volume slider: clicking it mutes just the teams call, but sliding the volume controls alters the volume level of the whole computer. Why?
- cuts off the sides of video, because it defaults to "fit video", so too bad to anyone sitting at the side of the camera, no way to change the setting, so you have to change it by. hand. for. every. video. feed. every. single. call.
- insists on continuing to send you notifications for that re-occuring marketing meeting you were in once, 6 months ago, but notifications for the link your teammates posted in the chat of the call you are currently in, are apparently not worthy of delivery.
- inexplicably defaults to using non-native notifications (on Mac OS), not sure why they felt the need to BYO awful notification system on an OS that has one built in, but it's awful.
this is the same in skype. i never even knew it's a thing until i right clicked on the video feed. this is some microsoft fetish ux from hell.
The trick here for everyone being driven mad by Teams randomly overriding system settings is that for each audio device there's a setting miles deep in the legacy control panel called:
"Allow applications to take exclusive control of this device"
Untick that, and then Teams won't have the permission to change system-wide settings. In practice, nothing else needs this permission anyway, unless you're doing some sort of low-latency audio capture with professional tools or whatever.- sometimes the same meeting ends up existing twice with the same name, with half the participants in here, the other half back there
- when your internet is bad, you can no longer hear the speaker talking, but the video feeds of 5 other participants all run fine
- when I join a call with a built-in microphone and a webcam microphone attached, teams pre-selects the webcam microphone, but sends the sound of no microphone at all. I have to go the hidden away settings, change to the built-in microphone and back to the webcam microphone to make it work.
- a few versions ago, teams would hammer microsoft servers with multiple authentication requests per second, eating a lot of CPU and bandwidth, but there's no indication of anything going on in the UI - you are still logged in and everything works normally.
- powerpoint presentations sometimes work, sometimes all you get to see is a black rectangle
- uploading files is extremely buggy, and it's not always clear if it did work or not.
- Odd behavior when using smartphone and desktop app at the same time - sometimes calls accepted on desktop are still ringing on mobile.
- Slow scroll back to history in chat.
- Message-Image size (height) limit is small
- Message length maximum is far too small
also, there is no version that installs in a system directory (bad for deployment), and the deployment version is terrible (it downloads and installs teams every time a user logs in).
requires tracking protection to be cut for microsoft websites on linux
super buggy and unusable on linux
My friend, this Linux user since the 1990s would like a word.
It’s maddening and IT can’t solve it properly, and I’m not the only one at my company having this issue.
Utter garbage app and user experience.
Edit: even worse is if I’m being called into an existing group call…there’s no way to accept.
Then over the next two hours I get 30 notifications about people liking my comment and nothing for anything actually useful, like calls. It doesn't even pretend to let me turn off notifications for reactions without losing the whole channel's notifications.
As far as the keyboard's concerned I think it's three buttons - something like cmd-shift-m where on Slack it's just m. Drives me mad.
I try and avoid installing native clients for occasional uses.
I want this feature in any "enterprise" chat app. In fact, more often than not if I copy multiple messages from multiple authors I want to have author/time metadata. For the very same reason we leave replied-to content in emails.
I agree that there should be mechanism to copy text only and even a setting to chose the default behavior.
I guess we are in agreement then
Ctrl-Shift-V pastes into TEAMs with no formatting. Should be part of the OS. Contrary to WebEx (what we came from for meetings), joining a TEAMs meeting from both PC and phone joins you as one participant, not 2.
Pasting without formatting should be the default behaviour. Ctrl-Shift-V should be for people who want the shitty version.
Oh god the searching
It's so bad it must be actively designed to not work.
Find a result that is outside the current cached chats and want to see the posts around it for context? Just click the result... To show only the result on page?? Lol gfy, you have to manually scroll allllllllll the way back through months of texts.
Let's lump together text chats meeting chats, org chart and sharepoint/teams files, and make a totally useless search function that actively hates users.
My biggest gripe though is just the sluggishness in every single thing. It’s like there’s a 500ms minimum latency for any action you can perform in the app. Truly miserable bit of software.
I always wonder how the dev teams feel on projects like this. They just know they’re shipping garbage, surely?
So evidently chats CAN be narrow if they want but god forbid you want to shrink down any of the windows to park on the edge of your secondary monitor. Why is the minimum window size so goddam huge?
- Your avatar not showing for you but showing for everyone else
- Messages randomly disappearing from DM history (they're supposed to be stored locally, so I don't even know how this happens)
- Entire contacts disappearing (if they're in a group chat, they'll show up as "Unknown User")!
- Editing a message where you've attached a picture and then it says "Uh oh, we lost your attachment. Please attach it again." (Not helped by the fact that Windows lacks a clipboard history, like KDE has.)
- Once, parts of the GUI just failed to load, so all buttons and many elements rendered as text labels reflecting variable names. Menus exploded to gigantic size since a small button was now "foo_bar_widget_doohickey" and it broke the layout badly. It was pretty funny.
(And this is all native! Native app on Windows. Not the web app.)
I've never seen any software this buggy. I've been using IMs for like 20 years now, and Teams sets a new, utterly unparalleled bar for dysfunctionality.
If I want to share graphs from LibreNMS with my team, I have to use the screenshot tool.
- This means if you were typing a follow up message your messages will look like this:
> Hey visit this cool site: https://news.ycombinator.com/ It has al
>l these cool discussions about tech!
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
At least, that's my hypothesis. It's the preinstalled browser debacle all over again.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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-...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
Any bad Italian restaurant microwaving stuff is better than Olive Garden.
I like their breadsticks but everything else should not be eaten by humans.
Of course, the whole reason that we were looking at it is that one vendor who says they prefer Teams for some reason, even though we already pay for both Google Meet and Zoom.
Decent would be able to switch chat tabs in under a second, reliable quoting (one minute ``` works, next minute it doesn't), an unread messages view like slack, and overall not being a laggy piece of crap.
It gets the job done, but its not decent.
Other than that agree that it’s too slow to load chats, unread notifications doesn’t go away reliably, search sucks etc.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-365/business/compa...
The claim is two years old now and I haven't heard any news regarding the matter and whether Slack proceeded to the end like Epic Vs. Apple or not
But I've noticed something else about computers and software. You can have two people with similar jobs, similar computers, similar software, etc. One person will have crashes and problems all the time, and the other person, smooth sailing. Nobody knows why. It doesn't matter whether they're IT experts or homemakers. In the words of a former office-mate: "I got a new computer, and spent two days setting it up exactly the way I want it, and yet it still crashes all the time." That person was a very sharp and productive programmer, yet he was swearing at his computer almost continually.
So it depends on which direction you push the customizations.
People have different annoyances and preferences. Perhaps you are lucky enough to be close to the default where you don't need to change so many things.
While the defaults for other is death by a thousand papercuts...
Imo this is just a result of the chaotic, unreproducible install processes typical for proprietary software and a hesitancy to do root cause analysis on a workstation when you have time pressures to focus on other things.
The deep mystery of 'no one knows why' when it comes to issues is something I've never experienced on a personal Linux machine as an adult. But most of us work on machines where software installers can do whatever they want, we don't control the software update cadence, and our computers are bogged down with all kinds of instrumentation (AV, privilege management, data exfiltration monitoring, etc.) that affects performance and compatibility in complex ways and whose configuration we may have limited capacity to inspect or modify.
The hopeless sense of mystification here is not a fact of computing. It's a function of being alienated from our computing environments. We don't have to work this way, and I wish we didn't. But we largely do.
Which applies to nearly 100% of modern software. (Including Linux distros and a lot of their required software, other than the source bit...)
Of course, someone would debate that with me, but before the Windows NT kernel took over, I had to format to solve problems sometimes. I haven’t had to do that a single time since Windows 7. I ran eight or nine years on one Windows 7 install.
Nevermind the fact I have cross- platform issues (win/OSX/linux/android) with audio and bluetooth devices with teams...
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Q/quantum-bogodynamics.html
In all seriousness, it probably has to do in large part with gestures broadly global state. Registry, configuration, what else is running on the system, how up to date it is. There are so many possible different settings, parameters, processes doing weird api calls, that it's a combinatoric explosion.
k
There is also an admirable type of person who has lots of tech problems because they’re genuinely pushing limits, but they’re rare.
Odd. I feel that people are sympathetic because everyone knows Teams is weird and cheap.
I can tell you from experience that issues stay well in known boundaries. I can tell which users will have issues and with what, by just looking at their installed applications.
Where things begin to fall off, users that want to be admins, developers that deploy random stuff. Power users in general are the cause of their own problems.
Developers sharp or not don’t always know how to run their own laptop. More often than not they are the cause of their problems.
There are some terrible applications out in the world. Creative cloud I’m looking at you.
Or I found this great application called Figma let me paste raw 500mb pictures & pdfs into it and watch it eat my machine alive.
Laptop & desktop hardware, Apple included, still has a huge randomness factor.
Forcing the square peg into the round hole often results in extra challenges. Sometimes its just easier to use the round peg, even if its not perfectly what you'd like.
I tend to just roll with the defaults and only change settings when I really need to. I tend to experience a good bit less friction than a lot of my coworkers who flip every switch into something other than the default.
- Why two windows when you are in a meeting? The second window is sometimes hard to find intuitively.
- Why, when opening an attachment, is the user locked out of chat? Again, with many windows open, the preview can look and function like whatever app is native to the previewed file.
- is there a way to disable camera previews when sharing screen? The two together take up way too much interface. If there is a way, I should not have to search for it.
- Upload a file to chat and sending that file are two separate actions. Why? I can’t count the number of times I have to remind students to press the send button after upload.
It's like $PATH, but for UI elements.
What do you mean? Aint the icon stacked on task bar?
>Upload a file to chat and sending that file are two separate actions. Why? I can’t count the number of times I have to remind students to press the send button after upload.
I think it could be sane in such a way that you dont send something by accident
I understand that. However, the way they implemented it was clumsy. See my comments below. For this, this is a serios time-waster. Every day I have to remind people use this feature incorrectly.
Seriously, that is a godsend if you are presenting a lot and have a two+ monitor setup - have the presentation up on one, still see your participants on the other one.
> - Upload a file to chat and sending that file are two separate actions. Why? I can’t count the number of times I have to remind students to press the send button after upload.
That's a safeguard. Too easy to send the wrong file. Making it a two-step process gives the user a chance to recognise a mistake and correct it.
As I mentioned, in class, every single day I have to remind students to press the send button.
This tells me something very clearly: that they did not observe users actually using this app before they released it.
Trucks are useful and many features of them make sense on a ranch - but they are cumbersome and awkward in the inner city.
For me, apps that spit out windows became a PITA when you have many apps open (which I always do).
Two screen benefit can be had from following the lead of an app like Resolve, which has a built-in two-screen feature.
Why not use tabs to accommodate the two functions? Or some other widget? Currently, it honestly feels like two apps stuck together. The fact that, when previewing a file, the chat window visually presents exactly as Word, Excell or whatever does not help.
But I do agree "undock" is awesome, its the only way to get near-fullscreen on presenations. So in this case there is actually 3 windows...
Teams binds to the previous account, so if you want to login to another account (say, if you're both a student and have a job) you have to log back in to the last account, totp and all, before you can logout and log back in to the account you want. There are no back buttons.
Teams is shit. I use it because I have to, but its ridiculous how bad the UX is and its a shame, because I think microsoft can do better.
I've heard the interoperability with teams and office365 is phenomenal though. Multiple people editing the same document, while in a call presenting that document, security of the files all settled in the cloud with easy to use interfaces. It sounds great, I don't really use any of that. To me, teams will always be a crappy voip tool.
Really, it's a great solution. I've done it for a while. I don't use edge for anything else but it runs teams.microsoft.com great
As a result I have vowed it will never sully any machine I am responsible for maintaining.
Having all of the MS junk walled off into its own browser that you use for nothing else isn't a terrible idea either, regardless.
Also, don't try to do this with firefox: various features (such as sharing your screen) are not available in firefox.
I use the official Microsoft Teams Preview for Linux or whatever its called, no idea why they decided to call it Skype in the Application Settings. Can't even really be legacy stuff, as far as I know a Skype for Linux Application never even existed.
What I meant was Skype for Business. I had to use a Windows VM, which only use was running Skype for Business so that I could join meetings and call colleagues etc.
It's the same with other Microsoft products. Like someone else said, it doesn't matter how bad they are, money streams are basically guaranteed.
It's weird how their software almost feels like shareware or debian packages lurking in the repos unchanged for 10 years, just with ads and unresponsive UI.
Students and teachers really have no interest in being informed on the bottom of the screen that it's currently raining (we have actual windows for that), nor do we care that Ethereum's Ether fell by 10% in value this day.
Such things make no sense in an educational setting. Moreover even browsing the web when the teacher wants to show us some JS animation on a website (you know, such website that doesn't get updated, yet works, it's path starts with a tilde, and is only served via plaintext http) is uncomfortable, as Edge browser starts up with a screen filled with ads and random news articles about the war in Ukraine or political situation in the US.
I went quite off course, but Teams is no different. As soon as the teacher logs in to the computer, Teams is starting to launch. Why? It would be somewhat okay if it just launched in the background, but no, after 20 seconds a Teams window opens, wastes 5 seconds of lecture time, because it doesn't immediately have the Close button drawn.
Maybe theese are all just issues our IT team could solve, but given the immense amount of money siphoned into MS both by the school and the country's educational ministry, some reasonable defaults could be expected.
Another example: In Germany (or maybe whenever the system language is German) Microsoft decided that everyone should have a ferris wheel and a brezel in their task bar because now it is Oktoberfest in Munich. Seriously? I think we have reached spam-as-an-operating-system.
No links
You can’t link to conversations. This means if you want to add context to a Jira ticket or in a code comment, you can’t easily do so.
Inconsistent UI
The UI between a Teams channel and a chat with multiple people is not consistent. Direct chats:
- do not have the ability to thread; so you end up with quotes all over the place and interleaved conversations.
- don’t support ``` for code blocks. Channel chats do. Why? I have no clue.
Notifications in channels are easy to miss
It’s really easy to miss notifications from channels unless you get messaged directly about it.
The emojis are bad
They aren’t customizable, but even the ones that are available are not great.
Compared to Slack
Teams lacks these features that I find useful in Slack:
- Don’t have time to address something immediately and don’t want to forget about it? Right click → Remind me later.
- Instead of struggling to communicate a screen location, draw on the screen when a co-worker is sharing their display. Ok, Teams introduced this recently. But the first time I tried it, I ended up stuck in annotation mode and had to quit Teams to be able to interact with my applications…
- Integration with Jira for automatic linking to mentioned issues by Jira Issue Key, e.g., PROJ-123. I think this one is just a limitation because my company hasn't added the integration.
- Notifications when when activity occurs in Bitbucket or Jira. Ditto.
The hold music sucks
The music played when alone on a call sucks. I suppose this is more subjective than the rest…
My favorite Teams bug is when the arrow keys stop working for text navigation. They had to go out of the way to break something like that.
In general, Teams doesn't have real markdown support. It can detect some markdown-ish syntax and replace it with its WYSIWYG stuff, but that's not the same thing (it doesn't always replace it, it doesn't handle messages sent with markdown syntax properly, it doesn't follow standard markdown syntax, and it doesn't let you edit the markdown markup).
Other issues I've had:
- Teams for desktop likes to randomly decide your microphone isn't working, and turn your audio off. The microphone works fine in literally any other program.
- Trying to close the window doesn't close it, it just minimizes it and hides it from the taskbar. It plays the minimize animation, it still shows up in alt-tab, and it stays on the same virtual desktop when reopening the window, rather than reopening on the current desktop.
- It always throws its window up when starting. There seems to be no way to make it start in the background.
-There is no way to choose spellchecker language, it's hardcoded to use the same language as the UI.
If you're using a Mac this might be a MacOS feature/bug which you might already worked around it in another applications https://discussions.apple.com/thread/253371535
You can, at least technically, if you know the message IDs (search for Teams deep links).. Not sure why they don't expose this on the UI though.. Shameless plug: If you are looking for linking conversation to Jira, try our app: https://marketplace.atlassian.com/apps/1220851/microsoft-tea...
Their products targeted to other programmers seem to be nicer to work with. E.g. VS Code, C#, SQL Server. The products aimed at the ‘knowledge workers’, like Teams, and SharePoint are garbage.
Definitely wrong, I have worked there with a few of the best developers and designers, the problem is not with the development side
> My guess would be that someone believes they need to have every feature from slack, zoom, WebEx, meet etc, and also integrate tightly with every Skype/SharePoint/OneNote feature, and also run on at least four platforms.
This is probably the main reason, probably not just with Teams but the whole Office suite
> But they aren't willing to give people time to do this.
If you refer to the above you'll see that there is never enough time to do that, it's too bloated and sometimes with contradicting requirements. If you then add testing it is probably impossible to come up with a good enough product.
Disclaimer- I still think Teams is an OK product and I use it daily
So you get a pile of conflicting goals.
Generally to resolve this you need to demand a high level of user competency. Think emacs; does everything, things are mutually exclusive, competency is required.
The teams approach though is to try to satisfy this without requiring any competency. It's probably not doable
Interestingly teams usage seems to be still rising post-pandemic, something competitors are not seeing (and competitors include its own Skype product), teams even managed to surpass Slack in third part plugin support. So i'm not really buying this thread as repsentative, but it more function of the extremly high usage whcih is suprising on a forum which is heavily Mac/Linux oriented.
I use all major chat applications. From Webex to Logmein, to various telephony bs like Jive, daily.
Is Teams perfect? No, but it’s nowhere near as bad as this thread paints it. Would I use anything else? Slack for chat & image heavy workloads, like dev team, or IT support queue.
We don't use Teams, but IME, every meeting I setup in Outlook defaults to including a Teams link. I have to actively turn it off. This type of thing will eventually get people stumbling into using Teams.
Our org uses Teams and sure, there are some negatives (search, I'm looking at you) I've never had any of the issues the parent has and I've been using it daily since it first came out. I also use Slack (less frequently) and prefer Teams, but Slack's search is much better.
Edit: also this came up recently: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-tea...
Good ol' MS!
On Slack, we were encouraged to keep communication out in the open, it was far easier to jump into discussions
Everyone is in a silo on Teams. Every time something needs to be discussed a new group chat is created, and the public channels see little use due to the "formality" of posting to them
It's also just a terrible piece of software. It doesn't handle media in any common formats (heif images, and most video is not transcoded). It tells you that you have already posted a piece of media just because the file name matches (likely, as I just paste everything from my clipboard). You can't draw on someone's screen during a call. Trying to type code into the message window is annoying and broken. Typing with any form of indentation is immediately lost. The custom notifications (why not use macOS notifications!?) are gross
I asked my business why we use it. I was told it was free for them. I told them it's probably costing us a lot more in lost collaboration and downtime due to technical issues.
The first was that Teams is Skype and Sharepoint mashed together with duct tape. When you'd ask for improved UX, it would all fall to "Ah yes, the Sharepoint team would have to do X so the other team can do Y. They aren't built like that, though, so you cannot have it". Teams is not one product and will never feel that way.
The second was scarier. I was trying to encourage communities of practice and having open communication by default, with some private rooms when needed. Like in Slack, you have multiple channels rather than disappearing into your own Team. Promoting openness was anathema to their Product people "Why would you want people to see what you say? Privacy is the default". I got the impression MS internally is not a safe space to speak, and Teams has that same cultural baggage.
I'm a consultant invited to meetings in a customer's tenant with people from various subcontractors and vendors present.
John: "So, what is your honest opinion about Andrew's statement?"
Me: "I have no idea who you are or which org Andrew works for... so no opinion that I'd be willing to state."
We now have a "Chit Chat" channel/team but it's so difficult to use in a natural way that now nobody uses it and now we have zero of it.
As a purely remote worker it kinda sucks
This is really weird to me too and makes collaborating within an org difficult. One of the big advantages of teams should be that we’re all in the same org and get paid and background checked. So there’s a base level of identity.
I can’t tag someone unless they are in a team. So yesterday I was in a thread in an R user group and couldn’t tag someone not in the group even though they had a relevant project. This was stupid.
So I would have to ask him to join the team just to talk on this one thread. And that didn’t happen so the thread was worse off.
That and the notifications are horrible and I have so many from the 30 teams I’m in (partly because of the above problem) I just ignore them.
If someone IMs me, I don’t know it unless I manually go to the pain that shows notifications that is usually behind other meetings.
I suspect no one at Microsoft uses Teams realistically. So it’s just full of met requirements on paper and not in reality.
It is a badly coded mess of spaghetti code, written with an ancient framework (AngularJS, currently running version 1.5.15), then ported to different platforms with Electron.
Have a look at the source code in your browser, it is not obfuscated in any way.
It is a single file of almost 17MB (!) of minified JavaScript, and I'm surprised the browser doesn't outright crash and actually manages to parse this, run and display a web application.
AngularJS's dirty checking was neat but pretty inefficient, and since you didn't have to think much about implications of changes of state it was easy to write slow apps in angularjs.
Back in the day with pure desktop apps, you had crisp quick feedback when you clicked things, a window would open or be dismissed. It was hard to cause serious timing bugs because 1) Most things were written in code compiled to platform sdks and 2) Not much was network based 3) THe app worked more quickly than your clicking
What happens when you add not only network, but app frameworks that feel more like browsers than desktop apps, you click things and it takes a second to spring back, you think you clicked a button but nothing happens so you click it again, maybe the app is sending telemtry back to base or maybe it is needlessly loading a dataset from the network instead of just a local dll. What does it add up to? 1,000,000 unrepeatable bugs based on random timings and lockups, based on people doing things they didn't realise like double-clicking at the same time that anti-virus is scanning the network or your internet provider is having a blip!
There are still apps from the old-school like Notepad++ on Windows which feels solid and which auto-updates really easily instead of dynamically updating when you are trying to work but somehow they are not cool or don't tick the promise of "cross-platform development" which mostly means it's a bit crap on all platforms instead of great on one.
Right now most of you are shaking your head. "It isn't that simple". "I can't do anything about this". "It isn't my place". You are wrong. You can do something about it, but it is going to take a bit of backbone and a bit of initiative. You may lack a backbone. Grow one. Don't whine. Whining accomplishes nothing and communicates that you have given up.
You find better alternatives, recruit others to your cause and force badly run organizations to change -- essentially by leading a revolt. There is only so much a manager can do when employees say "no". And it is easier to say "no" when more people say "no".
If you have ever been a manager you know perfectly well that if you can't get your people to do as you say, you are done. A leader who can't make people follow isn't a leader. It can be a career killer. Lots of managers have nightmares about this.
You can use that to your advantage.
If you don't want to use Teams: find an alternative, start using it, recruit others to your cause and stand up to whomever says "you can't".
On my team at a previous company we just started a team Slack when the company moved to Teams. If people wanted to get in touch with us faster, they had to use Slack. If they wanted a meeting with us, we’d send them a Zoom link.
It was passive aggressive for sure, but it allowed us to not have to use Teams as much. I’m sure there are some draconian companies that will actually fire you for refusing to fall in line on this stuff, but for many reasonable people, it’s pretty difficult to fire high performing people for something this trivial.
I can't change their decision, but I can work for somebody else, and having to suffer through this crapware is pushing me in that direction. "Must use Teams" is a huge red flag for any potential job offer.
I hate Teams, but here, I'm going to have to be on it anyway. Slack and other clones are better... but fragmenting communication between two different platforms (one of which must be Teams) is worse than just dumping everything into Teams and being done with it.
I did something no middle manager had done before me. I said "no". And my boss backed me up on it.
I got called into meetings with people with long titles and yelled at. I was told that this was insubordination, unproductive behavior and whatnot. I calmly explained that this didn't change anything because the equipment, software and service levels were not of acceptable quality and especially not at the cost to our budget. The answer remained "no".
Note that I was willing to be fired over this. I'd rather not have a job there than have to accept having to work with tools that would have made my day miserable. I made this perfectly clear.
So our organization existed wholly outside the company's internal network. We leased a broadband connection, set up our own internal infrastructure behind a couple of firewalls, had qualified people configure the network infrastructure, set up mail, calendaring etc with a better service provider, set up collaboration tools internally etc.
The cost? In the first year it was about the same as we would have paid for laptops, network, services etc in the existing regimen. The reason was that everyone got to pick their own computers - which were on the order of 6-7 times more expensive than the standard company laptop. All of our services were cheaper and orders of magnitude better. The second year we didn't have to buy everyone new computers so we had money to pay our own IT staff. People who worked for us, in our offices who you could walk over to and talk to. Stuff got done.
(We still could have bought ourselves expensive laptops every 4 years and still spend less money than the standard IT setup in the company)
Several things happened over the next years. Some of the systems were better integrated with the mothership. Employees from the rest of the company started to "bum rides" off of us. That is, they got accounts on our IT infrastructure, got access to our network etc. Because it allowed them to work more efficiently. There were clashes over security policy etc. These were resolved through reviews and formal approvals. Some of these were unnecessarily tense. Mostly because they laid bare the fact that the people who got upset about "the rebels" tended to be poorly qualified and had a habit of being bullies.
Eventually the culture slid backwards as good leaders left the company and were replaced with people who didn't actually know how to build an effective culture. A lot of the "freeloaders" were kicked out, which I felt was unnecessary and shortsighted. (In my book this was just basic poor judgement: if you can improve collaboration by spending a few hundred dollars per year per person, that should be a trivial decision. You just do it).
In parallel with this there was the production side. Rather than spending 6-9 months asking for virtual machines operated by incompetent consultants only available through a ticket system(), and with tons of paperwork to get anything done, we made use of AWS. A decade ago most of the IT leadership of the company had no idea what AWS was. It was obvious we wouldn't ask them for anything because they weren't qualified to help.
We got started by ignoring two families of rules. IT procurement and how to pay for stuff. We used a credit card to buy AWS resources, which our boss then expensed. This meant that we were up and running 1-2 hours after making the decision. No twiddling thumbs for half a year while people have to go to meetings and write documents of exactly what we need, and pay a fortune for third rate service on obsolete hardware.
This too went through a maturation process. I'm sure someone went through the formal procurement procedures (I wasn't involved in that). AWS started billing us via invoice. Since we are in Europe we also needed a few formal agreements on proper data handling by AWS etc. All of that happened.
A few years later we were the biggest AWS customer in our region. The funny thing is that when I spoke to the Group CEO about this, he had no idea that it started as an act of insubordination and that we really hadn't given the IT organizations any choice. Because there is always someone ready to take credit for other people's results.
I'm not saying that people should put their career on the line to do what we did. Because you kind of have to take that risk. But what I am saying is that unproductive top down mandates can be pushed back if you have people with some backbone. Even in companies where obedience is a big thing.
() I'm sure lots of IT services companies do this, but the company that delivered IT services to my former employer had a policy of closing tickets as soon as they could. Even when issues were not resolved. They could then misrepresent these cases as "closed". I don't think anyone really called them out on this practice. This meant that any non-trivial problem had to be filed again and again and again.
When I select "some text" and press Ctrl-C I want "some text" in the clipboard. Not this monstrosity:
[09:57] John Smith:
some text
I can't believe anyone inside MS uses Teams for serious communication. It must surely drive them mad!It should be easier to just get the body of text from one message while still giving those timestamp headers for multi-message selection. No reason why they can't figure out a better way to have both.
Teams is bundled with Office 365 to steal marketshare from other companies like Discord who charge a bit more and are a stand alone service. It’s why Salesforce bought Slack.
CFOs at Fortune 500 companies want to be efficient with their spending so they won’t buy an extra license if their existing bundle is “good enough”
Teams is “good enough” so Microsoft doesn’t invest in it as much as other more profitable areas
Recently I was presenting to 30+ senior staff, and in the middle of my sentence Microsoft Teams decided to shove its virtual hand in my face and prompt me to AUTHENTICATE RIGHT NOW. Not after the meeting, not in idle time, no sir! Right now. This instant. Or your presentation to the CxOs is over, you hear me? Got it?
Press the button on the phone, now. Press it. PRESS IT.
I have used Teams every day for 3 years. It is a memory hog, it sometimes takes a moment from connection to hearing people...but I never once had it 'crash'. I swap from phone to screen fairly regularly with no problem.
I wonder, do people who pay for Teams as an organisation get better service? We pay and I have no problems with it.
Most aggravating one being when audio just wouldn't work (test call worked fine) for one meeting (forced to listen in through the phone app) and then did work for the one right after.
The most regular annoyance is me getting marked as idle while actively working. When it did yesterday I was typing away a ton in vscode but it took a good long while for it to update.
On a personnal note it is much better for me since I stopped using the app on Linux. I installed microsoft-edge that is now dedicated to it and other Office365 stuff. I still experienced bugs, issues with messages synchronisation between teams running on more than one device or more than one browser. And the mobile app is a complete resource and battery hog, I refuse to install it on my new smartphone.
However, what Teams has done well is dethrone WebEx and other legacy stuff from really big companies during the pandemic/WFH era. As has been mentioned, many big companies already had huge Microsoft accounts (likely O365) so turning on Teams was easy. When WebEx fell over under load, users moved to Teams.
One feature that’s pretty cool is the real time closed captions and the ability to do text based searches for recorded meetings. But that’s not enough to make up for some of the most basic audio quality issues.
Half my teammates live in the same city and duplex conversations basically don't work. It's not just "my internet is bad", I can jump on discord with my friends, and watch 3 people stream stuff (in higher quality) simultaneously, and have multiple people talking simultaneously and be able to clearly hear all of them.
I support your need to vent, it's undisputably a magnificently huge pile of stinky garbage. Given the amount of resources poured in, it'd be hard to do worse.
(Okay, they also added a tiny bit of Markdown-based text formatting. Because why not use the least intuitive, most complicated possible solution, and then not document half of it.)
We're Microsoft hardware (surface line), Microsoft OS, and Microsoft software.
You'd think things would work with that combo? Sleep is utterly broken, Excel crashes, snip works sometimes, audio levels are all over the place with teams doing its own thing separate from system, BT connections are unstable, teams is dog slow, Onenote search gives up with even smallish amounts of data saved
I'm just not buying that MS is dogfooding this
Exactly. You are not the customer. Your IT admin is. And they have to convince your security team while managing spend. Why wouldn’t they pick the “free” option that your company has already approved for deployment?
I think that sort of poor engineering is a sign that the team behind teams must have very limited resources. It's hard to prioritise a desktop browser with such small market share, especially when a work around of 'just use the app' is there - but this is hardly a lean startup here.
The purpose of having it browser based is that I can have it quickly open in a tab in the window I’m already in and then close it again.
Other MS products work in my browser (Outlook for example) so why not Teams? I suspect because the Teams team is pretty understaffed.
Burn this wretched creature!
[0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/music-on-ho...
The producer of good A is using its momentum in market A to push a product in market B. This way, any big conglomeration can use its big fat ass to push innovation out of market B. All it has to do is offer product B for free, with a purchase of A. This promotes lazy consumerism, nothing good ever comes from it.
This is why coupled sales should be banned. This is why the EU tried to uncouple browsers from OSs, why you now have to explicitly choose a browser.
Polish and use-ability don't matter when they can sell anything if it has XYZ feature.
If you look at the teams roadmap it's more and more features.
- Windows Live Messenger
- Microsoft Office Communications
- Microsoft V-Chat
- Microsoft Lync
- Skype
- Skype for Business (completely different piece of software than skype)
- Microsoft Classroom
- Microsoft Teams
(no guarantee of completeness)
Some of these did better than others, but in the end they all went down the drain. That makes me suspect that it's not the software itself, but some corporate requirements that Microsoft imposes on their chat programs, that's the root cause of the problems.
- Hangouts - Wave - Plus - Duo - Meet - Chat
This one was painful with your smartphone and computer not necessarily receiving the same messages. Also I never understood how and why my status was changing/not changing automatically.
I think Teams still suffers from similar issues. It happens that sometimes I open a second teams in a separate browser to have a full chat window while videoconferencing and both chats are not always in sync, sometimes I see a message has been sent from the notification window but if I try to see the full message it never appears on that window while it does on another one.
OCS, Lync and Skype for Business are all the same (quite shitty) product.
Like in 2014 you couldn't send a message with more than 800 chars. Now imagine troubleshooting something which requires sending logs? AND this is not confirable AND the client actively bitch at you AND you can't even the know the char limit from the client.
[0] https://techslaves.org/2015/06/03/lyncskype-for-business-mes...
But few things can compare to Zoom's astonishingly cavalier attitude toward security and privacy, and Zoom seems unavoidable in many contexts.
Still not...great. But at least trending in the right direction.
On the other hand, the privacy situation... jesus I've never seen more analytics and cookies in my life than when I inspect my profile page on zoom.us.
If it was just chat, it would probably by much less of a bloated mess of crap. The problem is that MS never makes just a simple tool anymore. They want it to hook into every other MS platform and product line and before you know it, the new product is slow and bloated again...
I fished out my wife's Chromebook instead but we missed two minutes of the meeting.
That's clearly a failure: I didn't get a chance to check my setup before the meeting started.
I really like Teams and what it brings to my team. But reading the comments here I'm the minority.
Personally I prefer Teams over Slack but I haven't used Teams in a large company. Formatting is nicer in Slack but I can't imagine why anyone would claim Slack is good for sharing code beyond basic one-liners. Teams allows me to carry over a video call from one device to another while Slack doesn't even allow me to queue a message when I'm on spotty WiFi. Threading on Teams is a bit unusual but Slack's multiple ways of viewing threads (only one of which shows new replies in real time) can also be annoying.
But I'm not representative of most of the people commenting here. I run stock Windows 11 with an Azure AD domain account on a Surface Studio Laptop, I do my development in WSL and my browsing in Edge. And for the most part, everything just works.
I've not once had trouble with the screen sharing, though in the initial rollout of the feature to our org audio was a bit glitchy - that hasn't been an issue for us in the past ~6 months.
1) It's built on top of Sharepoint ... somehow.
2) It is a "Me, too" product without any kind of compelling vision, which usually leads to a mentality of "survey existing competitors in that 'space' and nab their features."
3) Because it is free, they feel the need to push it everywhere, even if isn't appropriate for most people. Go to your File Explorer and stare at that "3D Objects" Folder, marvel at the concept that so many people would have 3D printers that of COURSE you are going to need a 3D objects folder, the same way you have one for Music. Wait...
MS won't even support two accounts, so 3 out of 4 times I get invited to a teams meeting I'm in the wrong account, and it's a huge pain to sign out and sign back in; there's no single sign-in (even in Windows!) that works for Outlook, Onedrive, Teams, etc. all at once. Ridiculous.
With the built in SharePoint, and Office editors you can see that it is designed for a very particular use case. The problem is that most people on Hacker News are not just document sharing and editing. Most people are not doing this, and especially not in the half baked Office online tooling.
As a chat tool isn't not great. It isn't supposed to be a chat tool though, which is why it will never be good.
Oh– It's a buggy video call solution and poor replacement for Slack? Yeah, not important.
They're at over 270m users in an ecosystem of 350m Office 365 users. There's no "less buggy version of Teams" out there with market share to attract by making minor improvements to the software.
It does exactly what it's supposed to, and what Skype for Business already did. The biggest thing moving the roadmap forward is Teams capability to do "Office 365 Enablement" - i.e. win new users into the Office 365 ecosystem.
There's a lot of things Microsoft can do to accomplish that. Some of them may be new Teams features. Some of them are tweaks to pricing and bundling and other unsexy things like that. Some of them may eventually be bug fixes or fun features that make Teams more enjoyable to use.
But, at this point, your best chance of getting minor features built, is to hope internal Microsoft employees find it annoying enough to prioritize, just so they can see the feature fixed.
Because Teams does what it's supposed to, decently well, and well enough to succeed massively in the marketplace for "generic video call software I don't have to pay a bunch of extra money for".
Employer was using Skype for Business. I hated it. Had to install pipeline jobs to detect non-ascii crap that developers copy pasted from message chats. The text processor on Skype loves to convert quotes to curly quotes add some weird character that looks like a space but its some rich text aberration.
When company announced it was moving to Teams I was very happy. We could finally ```exchange some code``` right? I'm not happy right now. Its slow, it hangs all the time, it makes a mess with audio devices and behaves erratically when copy-pasting text. Sometimes it copies what you select but most of the time it copies the whole message along with the metadata.Some people can still use Skype. When you send messages to those people it flattens out everything into a single paragraph.
I suspect some of those issues might be caused by security crapware that the company implements on the locally installed Teams software. Doesn't change the fact that I kinda miss Skype now.
I'd blame Electrum but vscode is kinda ok. Not my choice for editor but still not as terrible as Teams.
Come on Microsoft. Discord which is a tool for gaming teenagers is miles ahead in usability and features. Slack lacks features but its a breeze to use. Even Element which is a company that probably has less than 5% of MS resources can output a decent product.
It is a catastrophically corpulent and fickle mass of errors, wrapped in a UI that looks like Prince shat it out circa 1998.
Bugs I encountered:
1. Opening the link to a scheduled meeting opens the browser (good), but then clicking the "open in teams" and confirming the external URL handler in the browser does... Nothing. Restarting teams fixes that. (Happens for my team mates as well).
2. I have a dedicated USB mic that's always on, while my speakers are on a different USB device that's not always on. I have to reconfigure the audio settings very often, which is especially annoying since I can't do that before answering a call. But changing the audio device works without error (unlike Discord on my private PC, which lets me select the newly connected USB device as output, but needs to be restarted to actually output audio to it).
That's about it. Of course memory and CPU usage are rather impressive. And afaik we don't use the phone (as in landline, not as in app) feature; at least I don't, so I can't comment on that.
I've to add: I tend to bash MS first and ask questions later. I'm unhappy I can't use Linux on both my work PCs. But if I'm honest, teams works pretty well for us.
A similar issue occurs on Skype for Enterprise. You cannot plug your headphones in after someone starts calling. You have to decline the call, go in the settings and call back.
Have you never tried to join a meeting where teams made you just sit there for a minute until you decide to restart it?
Have you ever called someone at the same time as they call you, ending you with teams saying that they are calling you at the same time as you are calling them?
Have you ever tried to click on an old message from a search result, just to end up nowhere near the message?
Have you never join late to a meeting because teams didn't notify you that the meeting had started?
If you have an external calendar account linked to outlook, have you never noticed that the linked calendar events don't show up on teams calendar?
Have you ever clicked on a message notification, scrolled a bit up or down to a different message and have teams snap you back to the notification message for no good reason?
Have you ever thought to yourself that it would be nice to use custom background images on video calls, just to realise that Microsoft loves Linux so much that you can't do that on their Linux client?
Have you never noticed your teams status showing that you are in a meeting when you are not, even without any schedules meeting in the calendar?
If not... Well... Lucky you, I guess.
Maybe our usage is just to basic; it's a tool for voice/video calls/meetings and some basic chatting. We can't even attach files anymore because our company doesn't really use teams and didn't extend the necessary licence (only our team/suborg is allowed to use it, since we need something like it and the internal alternative is not built, yet... Don't ask, not my paygrade to decide or influence that).
I don't do a lot of searching. Maybe it's broken, maybe not. Wouldn't be too surprised if it is for some users and works okay for others.
Meetings are in our outlook calendar, with working notifications.
No idea about my status, never noticed it to be off.
I'd happily trade Windows for Linux if that meant no custom background images. But I'm not surprised that the Linux client is more limited.
I'm probably just lucky we use teams only a little.
This feels like an extremely basic state to detect: after n seconds of no heartbeat, reconnect.
Microsoft brutalised Slack with a C grade app that was “bundled for free”. For 80% of people, teams is just fine.
Admittedly, Teams uses a lot more RAM, but I have a lot of RAM. I would never know this unless I checked it.
It's borderline unusable on Linux, and I've reverted to using it on my android tablet where it is only marginally better and still has issues constantly with audio, as well as crashing when starting up, or "updating" and somehow running two simultaneous instances of the app with only one visible. Also the notifications for when someone calls has never once worked on the tablet, while simultaneously I'll get nonstop repeating notifications for meeting chat messages from a week ago.
I'm sure for many people it works just fine, but for many others that aren't exactly on the Microsoft happy path, it's a nightmare.
Meanwhile I bought a personal computer for myself with none of my work stuff on it, and I got one with 4GB of RAM because for me that's plenty.
Younger people have only ever used bloated laggy stuff like teams and don't know any better.
I miss the days of just having a dedicated desk phone - it rings, you answer, and talk instantly.
Teams in comparison pops up a call dialogue box, have to navigate the mouse to answer (because the answer hotkey doesn't work most of the time), wait for it to connect, fuck around fixing your audio devices which have changed for some reason, then finally get to start talking.
Yes teams is better if you are moving around a lot, but if you just work from home or office in a fixed location its a regression in usability.
I don't really. It tied me to my desk. Now my extension is wherever I want to work, not just at my desk. Its on my cell phone, its on my work laptop, its wherever I am.
Loads of desk phones didn't have any Bluetooth support so using a headset meant getting a probably expensive maybe proprietary thing with EHS support (or a mechanical handset lifter!!!).
When I want to call someone about an email they sent me, I just click the Call button and it connects me. I don't have to then think about "what was their extension?", context change to an entirely different physical device, and then dial that extension. And then if that call connected on Teams, I'm ready to share video or have the chat pulled up to easily send them additional context right away. With a desk phone, we'd have to context change to yet another platform to then share a screen.
I do get some nostalgia for desk phones. I did our office's deployment of SIP phones and continued to be the manager of the PBX until our migration to Teams. Working on that phone hardware was honestly fun and interesting. But looking at my experience today, having it on my work machine and on my cell phone is just better.
FWIW, my Thinkpad has a call answer and decline/hangup keys on the function row which works with Teams. Makes it pretty easy. But I still don't necessarily have a hard time answering a call with the keyboard/mouse when I'm not in front of my laptop keyboard.
I had an pre-voip Avaya phone with 24 speed dials - for each contact it had a red/green LED next to the speed dial button that showed if they were busy. If it was green you could just press it and call. It had a proper headset port so no ghetto lifter :)
Teams has available status also, but I find its pretty much useless as people either fake their status to avoid being hassled, or its synced to their outlook calendar that has so much junk in it that they show as busy all day.
Roaming around wasn't much of an issue either, I just had forward to cell phone if it wasn't answered after a certain number of rings.
We also had integration with windows so tel: links and dialling from contacts worked as expected.
In the end I've learnt to live with teams, I made a small "chat" script that uses a teams url [0] to open a chat with a person from the command line vs hunting through the awful laggy ui, another AHK script to make a global mute hotkey based on a library I found on github, and another script I wrote to fix the audio device.
Having more speed dial buttons would have made the desk phone a bit nicer to have. Some people in the office which used the phone a 10 speed dial buttons but a lot of the phones just had four buttons which one showed your cureent status.
Forward to cell is fine but it's only half the full feature of having your extension actually on your phone. You can receive calls, but placing them and having it show up as your office number is trickier. Our VoIP system eventually came out with halfway decent phone apps but it was a bit clunky how it actually worked internally migrating the presence from the desk phone or soft phone to the phone app.
If you have multiple accounts or your account has access to multiple tenants, you can only really work in one of them at a time. You have to log out and log in to each of them. Totally unusable.
Slack got this well from day zero. I can't understand how 6 years later MS Teams still doesn't support well this simple and common scenario.
At the very least, MS should let us run multiple copies of Teams, one for each tenant. The only way around it right now, is to have the desktop client open and then the web client for a different tenant.
I think philosophically the cause is that MS 365 and Azure AD are very much built on the idea of having isolated tenants with cross-tenant guests being local copies (the documentation for implementing Azure auth for apps explicitly recommends against mixing tenants) and tenant switching was clearly an afterthought. But there's really no reason not to allow having entirely separate copies of Teams for the different tenants just like you can have multiple copies of Edge signed into different accounts.
On the other I would be wholly unsurprised to learn that there are some obscure data sharing violations happening in the Slack client when you are connected to multiple Slack workspaces and Teams avoids them through rigorous isolation.
Slack is still the best thing for work and man I hate that fact. I'm so ready to jump ship - someone please!
[Follow up] At the end of the day I want something as snappy and reliable as Whatsapp for work. I have my gripes about it, but it absolutely excels at one thing - getting my message to the other end.
Perhaps, having used Teams' predecessor "skype for business" I am just grateful the torment is over.
My experience has been pretty positive overall, at least for calling. Channels don’t work as well as slack, but it’s decent.
The big trick is to run it in a browser so you avoid any electron overhead. It is fully featured in browser.
Does that mean, like, the CPU resources it exhausts in the browser as opposed to the app is capped or reduced? Thanks
If a company uses Teams for anything more than video call, to me it's a sign that they don't care about productivity of their employees.
I wish open sourcing would go beyond dev tooling
This has been my only real complaint in the ~8 months using the client
Sometimes there are no notifications. I’ve had messages by my boss that I’d only see by chance hours later because Teams never notified me. I tried ingesting Seq alerts. But those are only possible in the groups tab, which has literally no notifications at all if one is in the chats tab.
The search feature has to be an elaborate joke. No one can think you can build a search feature that shows no context at all.
Their pseudo-markdown. What's going on there? If I press the wrong symbols or forget to paste with Ctrl+Shift+V I’ll be in some weird layout state that I can’t get out of, usually I just give up and send the broken looking messages.
I'm running on Linux, Teams in the browser is 'okish' but always feels crappy/slow/buggy
Jitsi is always nice to use :)
Individually, things like MS Word / Excel work really brilliantly in the browser and as a cloud suite. But put them together and it's an absolutely clusterf*k.
The list of "apps" is absolutely enormous - and there is no coherent route between them, or consistency in operation. It looks like exactly what it is - a huge, overarching and insanely rich company just simply bought All The Things, slapped a bit of branding and a font on everything and then popped all the icons onto the same page. There's zero consistency, zero sense of how these things should be used together, zero explanation as to why you'd choose (say) Yammer over Teams, "Bookings" over Outlook calendars, or "Viva" over Sharepoint. The documentation is awful - again, not individually - sometimes this is ok - but the overall "this is the suite you're buying into, and here's how to use it" strategic overview. In fact it isn't awful, it's just simply non-existent.
This is before you even get to the absolute horribleness of the logging in / logging out / multiple windows opening / redirection hell user experience.
And then - layer on Teams on top of this - it is absolutely opaque about whether Teams is trying to be a sort of "glue" for all of the above (it fails) or a replacement (it fails) or a standalone thing (it mostly fails). There's a sort of half-assed attempt to make bits of Teams sort of work with bits of Sharepoint, but no, actually it turns out it doesn't, quite...
It's just such a weird thing. As I say, the individual experiences are sometimes quite good - Word is really excellent in-browser for example - but the overall piece is just absolutely insane. I'm slightly at a loss as to how to onboard and train organisations with few IT skills when a veteran like me (20+ years in the business) is absolutely baffled by it.
I would even say it's getting better and better.
I have no idea what the problem is here. It works perfectly fine in one situation, and not at all in the other. Both Windows machines.
When Teams first arrived, I was startled at how good it was. Great UI, good telephony and just did what it was meant to do. It worked well, and did what it said on the tin.
I've watched it turn to shit over the last two years. Every update made it slower, buggier and more annoying. Surreptitious updates made me miss meetings as the background service on Android was stopped and never restarted after the update.
What was once a pleasant surprise is now a horrific buggy PoS. Kill it with fire.
Edit: I do hate one thing, no way to share part of the screen! When using an ultrawide I always have to resort to lowering my resolution to a lowest common denominator 1080p to avoid people not being able to read what I share. Sharing one app doesn't work since I switch applications too much and want to share them all.
I work as a consultant, and that also means I adapt to the videoconferencing solutions my clients use. In the last week, I used Teams, Zoom, Slack, Cisco Webex and Google Meet.
Each of these come with different advantages and disadvantages. None works perfectly, but interestingly, Teams is the one I experience the fewest problems with (closely followed by Google Meet) - and if my company was a Microsoft centered shop where lots of office documents are shared around, Teams would probably be what I choose.
Worst is Cisco Webex, which imho needs to die quickly.
Their customers are locked in for life. They won't leave. They tolerated Skype (Lync) for years, Teams is way better than that.
It's the same story with Google Chat and Meet. They can simply ignore it and what are you gonna do? Move your entire company off Gmail/Outlook? Even if you get irritated and start paying Slack or Zoom, you are still paying full price for Teams/Meet.
2) Network effects
and 3) Who else is doing something different? No one cares about the quality of the product they make anymore. The only thing that's important is pushing new features. Fixing old features is useless because by the time someone finds out the feature they chose you for doesn't work, they've already paid you for a year long contract. And most of the time, by the time the year rolls around, they're used to dealing with the problem and don't want to take the disruption of moving to something else again.
- Showing off optics bullshit like burndown charts
- Adding features
- Fixing extremely severe and well-documented bugs
- Committing some token time to pretending to fix tech debt
- Cleaning toilets with a toothbrush
- Actually fixing tech debt
- Fixing bugs
- Hammering nails through each of their own toes
- Making good software
When you're a consultant working with multiple companies, it's vital to be able to access multiple Teams accounts. Now I have to log out and log in to the various accounts, or use the browser version.
Then fun ensues when you schedule a Teams meeting in Outlook and you don't remember which Teams account you were logged into - I've connected to my own meeting, and I (along with everyone else in the meeting) is waiting for the host (me) to start the meeting - but I created it while logged into some other Teams account. Now I have to log out and log in and try to find the right account.
There also needs to be a way to have it sort the attendee list by the ORDER THEY JOINED. Most recent people at the bottom. Right now, it sorts by name and I have to keep scrolling the list of attendees, which keeps changing as people join, and try to figure out if the person(s) I am waiting for are there.
Having said that, in the last year or so I noticed Teams is more stable and provides a better user experience. Or, perhaps, it's just me being succesful at lowering my original expectations.
JPL isn't a large company.
Java remains a fluke, successful in spite of Oracle.
The Oracle DB internal team culture is just plain depressing. Stuck 30 years in the past in terms of development practices, little or no innovation is allowed. Function names are limited to four or five characters, and the source control is literally from the nineties. Maybe that's the secret to success: Trap enough H1Bs and use the whip.
I suppose it all depends on how you define "good quality". Across many dimensions, Oracle is somehow better than average.
Maybe it's because, for all it's faults, Oracle does always prioritize security what "quality", whatever management decides that means.
Sure beats the Google strategy of constantly murdering anything that isn't Gmail or Search. Is this even a real strategy, or just the lack of one?
I hate Oracle culture and their licensing as much as the next person and will avoid their product and services as much as possible, but Oracle database is one of the most scalable and stable database products around.
In fact, I believe Microsoft will replace the desktop client with a web app shell.
You can try it out today;
1. Install the Microsoft Edge Web browser on Mac or Windows 2. Log into https://teams.microsoft.com 3. Click … > Apps > Install this site as an app 4. Enjoy!
I believe all application logic is moving to .net with the visible elements being HTML & CSS, but do not remember where I read it, so take it with a grain of salt.
if there was mention of react native, I do not remember it, but I gloss right over mentions of most web frameworks, so it may play a role.
It's probably worth me mentioning that I'm building a Teams client using Typescript and Tauri! https://opercom.co.uk
https://github.com/ItzLevvie/MicrosoftTeams-msinternal/tree/...
chrome.exe --app=https://teams.microsoft.com
you can also add these two for an isolated copy of each Teams instance: --profile-directory=
--user-data-dir=My only beef is voice communication latency. It is definitely several hundred milliseconds - far worse than using a phone. This leads to very unnatural CB-radio type conversations (you almost need to say "over" when you are finished talking).
I agree with your assessment that it isn't bad though. I don't have any of the issues that everyone here is reporting. Everything just works, I can call any of the 1000s of people at our org and they can join effortlessly.
I'd happily switch to whatever else to be less reliant on MS, but teams being bad isn't a valid argument in my mind.
I want sub 50ms.
We also use it, but out of frustration, many of our colleagues use Slack as well as some hardcore engineering teams are too reluctant to use Teams and outright use Discord.
Many of the teams brought in the issue to upper management about Teams but they redirect us to our IT management company, who tells us it comes with subscription and our business strategists or something has to ask to change this but they want an “ubiquitous” company wide system and so on.
Now we are often stuck with messaging people in three different places because someone will never respond in Teams, someone may not be in Slack and someone may not be using discord :)
Teams on my smartphone crashes in the middle of calls. The only way to fix this is to reinstall from the App Store. And then hope it will stay stable for a while.
Also I’m paying a monthly subscription for this experience.
I suspect the complicated features mixed with weird memory/performance management techniques and automated testing don't align well with user use cases (try copy pasting large conversations and notice I'll start deselecting text as you scroll).
1. Neutralize the threat from Slack (AKA Salesforce)
2. Give Enterprise sales teams a checklist item
3. Don't spend a dime more than necessary on software development
4. Integrate with the rest of the MS enterprise product line
On top of those goals, the internal sponsors of Teams have to survive the savage internal politics at Microsoft, so the product is designed to threaten no important factions.
* The volume is STILL too low after all these years.
* You can't be in more than one meeting at the same time. Even working with Teams is difficult while being in a meeting even though this has been improved. If you stay within same account that is, otherwise, you still lose.
* You are much more limited as logged-in than as guest meaning half of the attendees are guests even if they have accounts.
* Multiple Teams accounts simple does not work.
* Creating a guest account in a third-party (Teams) tenant is among the biggest mistake one can do. MS seems randomly force you to login to any or all the associated tenants for your account. You downloaded that document from a customer once and VS like, now before you deploy something to your private tenant in Azure, let me force you to login to that customer that you once got a doc from.
Teams might not be perfect by far, but it is light years better than anything in the enterprise right now.
What a joke.
I don't know where I learned this eldritch incantation--it certainly wasn't in the documentation--but it works.
It's the spawn of an unholy union between Markdown and WYSIWYG. Triple backticks is the opening (and closing) sequence of characters used to denote multiline snippets of 'preformatted text' or code in Markdown.
Pressing enter 5 times is what happens because Microsoft insists on preventing you from writing actual Markdown, even as an option.
Single backticks works (and you can use a second backtick to close 'exit' that formatting mode), but delightfully, it only works if you're typing, and not if you copy and paste.
In the editor it inserted half a page of blank lines for no reason.
Then it sent the snippet with an ENORMOUS bold heading, also for no reason.
Then the 4-line script was truncated to 3 lines so as to confuse the person receiving it.
Fantastic quality.
I used it in the browser with Linux and it wasn't great. But on a mac it is fine and I haven't experienced any real problems.
Are you using it on Windows?
That's not too say these things shouldn't be improved, but bundling teams with office for free sure made my communications with most of my customers 1000% easier.
Lync was not perfect, and Skype for Business even less so, but they at least had a UI that wasn't a chainsaw massacre to use or to stare at. Every time I have to use Teams because it's the de-facto standard I always come away from the conference call feeling dirty - like I just used a nasty shopping cart at a disgusting filthy walmart to get groceries - and makes me pine for SfB or Sametime.
Better days.
But it's normal for MS to rush with a product, only to get better after years. I remember that IE only gets good after IE 4, and SQLServer only after some versions too.
Teams just had to be good enough to be included into Microsoft’s “Bundle”. Once it’s free and available, it gets adopted by prior bundle purchasers.
We'd never see communications, even with notifications, in the "Teams" area of teams. When I did think to look at the conversations, all of the additional whitespace and padding the Mac client adds (not sure if it's all clients) on the messages in the "Teams" area just made it very difficult to consume context around a single discussion. There were another annoyances, but we didn't use it long enough for me to remember what they were.
We now just use the "Chat" portion of teams for all conversations and rename multi-person conversations with the project name. Starting a new chat with the same group of people for a different project is far more difficult than it needs to be, but I understand that's probably not the use case with how we're using it.
Search is abysmal. When clicking a result, you jump to the message but it is invariably devoid of any contextual information. It's just the message, by itself, in the chat window. It's only use is finding the date/time for the message you need, then scrolling back (for minutes sometimes) until you find the conversation from 3 weeks ago. And then, all the reverse infinite-scroll loading makes the client slow down to a crawl.
We routinely have issues with images not displaying. Sometimes loading the larger version works, many times it does not.
We routinely have issues with messages going completely missing in 1:1 chats. The sender can screenshot and show the message was sent, but the recipient never receives it, even after restarting the client.
I often get notifications of a new message in a 1:1 chat and when I goto the chat, I'm at the end of the channel and the message isn't there. I have to scroll up and then scroll back down so the infinite-scroll will load the missing message.
When in the new message box, I can CMD + UPARROW to edit my last message. This is useful because I make a lot of typos and fix them after sending/reading. A bad habit, perhaps, but it's how my process works. Anyway, this doesn't work if I someone has sent a message after mine. Teams is not smart enough to let me edit my last message with CMD + UP unless it was the last one sent. I have to switch to the mouse to make the edit. Also, if I CMD + UP in time to make an edit, submit it, then realized I missed another typo (it happens), CMD + UP no longer works. I have to manually focus the "Type a new message" box again and then it'll work. At that point I've touched my mouse, so I usually just opt to right click + edit the last message.
Sometimes after waking up my Mac, the teams window is missing. This happens to outlook too. CMD + TAB to focus the app doesn't retrieve it. I usually have to "launch" teams or outlook again (while it's still technically open) to get the window to reappear. No other App on my Mac does this, just Teams and Outlook.
Given how we use Teams, I like to "pin" chats for specific projects. I'm limited to how many I can pin. Why?
This one is minor: Gifs loaded with giphy can be paused. Copy/pasted gifs cannot. They auto play forever, which is annoying when it's the team chat I keep focused 90% of the day, but the conversation is slow that day.
I'm sure there are other things I'm missing.
The search actually used to be better earlier, it would show you the message and also the messages around it, now it doesn't.
I have a very decent build at home, new gen amd, 64gigs RAM, the linux desktop app still crashes, it slows down during search whereas slack runs like a monster compared to it.
Whenever a message comes, the tab will do its best to get you out of focus, sucks as a programmer in the zone. I had to mute lot of chats.
Actually no one at work used the teams features, it was only the normal chat. It sucked because there wasn't even the reply feature earlier and we still can't create threads.
It doesn't integrate with any bots, jira or git.
The people who make the decision on what comm platform to use don't need these features. They use email for written coms, and teams for calls.
They feel opting for something other than teams or jira will look bad on them if it doesn't work.
Pretty much the whole company is on Teams.
If Teams was as bad as this thread suggests we would have heard about it (I know this because company-wide we complain bitterly about the anti-malware cruft that gums up our machines daily)
So it seems to me that we either got very lucky with our rollout or this thread represents a very vocal minority of people that are experiencing issues
My experience is that even many of my developer colleagues are not power users. They happily rebuild thrice in Visual Studio without even questioning the need for that. They perform strange rituals to make things happen. They resigned to the fact that everything is dog slow.
I cannot settle for that, so I rant.
But in general it pretty much stays out of the way, and has enabled us to fairly seamlessly transition the org to WFH.
Search is still beyond retarded, though.
I don't honestly think they are taking responsibility for quality issues or feedback.
One day we'll all make the switch to sticker based conversating, but until they push it feverishly and madly like the world is ending that evolution will be just out of our grasp. They simply halfassedly work to make it actively bad and don't really have the drive to make it truly sinister like they should. Somehow it would drive gains in the share price quarter over quarter like any sufficiently evil dark pattern spec software always does automagically.
Frustratingly Microsoft is just not laser-focused enough on driving the adoption of a campaign to hit those KPI's it seems.
/s
(I weep for the death of Lync daily)
I've been using it for a couple of years, and I have never had this issue. I can switch between my built-in soundcard and my USB headset without any problems. On Windows FWIW.
The IntelliJ Code With Me feature is worth trying: https://www.jetbrains.com/code-with-me/
Can imagine the disappointment in real world use with grainy, poorly lit, blurry webcam images of normal people.
The search is frustrating (find a result but can't jump back to the full context?) and the UI is laggy on my laptop. The call/video features work as good as anything else I've used in the past.
Maybe it's cuz they're one of those companies that sell to management instead of users. Maybe the pitch isn't "your users will love us" but "we simplify IT fleet management for you, and your users... well, they don't have a choice, so don't worry about them."
Could they really not have bothered just going that extra mile to do both...? None of their products HAVE to be terrible... they just need love and focus :(
As an aside, though, why do you hate VSCode? I use IntelliJ myself but most of my colleagues use VSCode and love it... yours is the first bad review I've heard in a while. What's terrible about it?
It's easier for IT deps at mid-to-big corps already invested in MS, wins on price, and connects well with MS infra (office, security/auditing etc).
With MS moving to Edge browser, their strategy looks interesting, and I think they will be solving much of their tech headaches (Teams, office etc) by shifting to mainly Web Technologies (even web3).
"Yes!"
It can be slow when joining very large meetings, though, but I use it mainly on a mobile CPU.
No issue with devices either and I can switch on the fly even when they are in use.
In reality if you have to choose something for corporate section. In comparison to slack for example, MS Teams looks pretty solid
What voice/video client handles this much fiddling? When my friend and I get steam voice chat running, it’s a good day. We don’t touch anything after because these services notoriously suck.
Teams cloud based file sharing and overall UI/UX are nice. I don’t like how you can’t copy messages without a time stamp, or that black bar appearing on top when you screen share that obstructs any tabs or the rdp bar. But overall it’s a nice client in Windows as long as you don’t hop around too much which I don’t because I do my work on one machine idk what OP is doing lol.
Maybe Zoom and Slack are better, as a Windows developer, the integration is nice.
Its peak elegance, have to kill teams, modify a json file with some cryptic uuid reference to the speaker and mic device, then restart teams.
We use it for 100% of our conference calls, sales calls, 1:1 working sessions, all-hands (hundreds of attendees), virtual trainings, new-hire onboarding, etc…
I’d say it’s the most useful software we use in my company outside of email.
Admittedly, I’m yet to experience the pure bliss that comes from collaborating on an NFT project with fellow Slack team members from my Mac Book Pro while riding in my auto-pilot enabled Tesla.
Until then, I’m pretty content with what I’ve been able to do with Microsoft Teams over the years.
That’s the best.
Try using “/find” function in the global search.
And while we’re in the subject, global find is also awful.
Why do I have to find then click through to more messages before it gives me filtering options. It’s incredibly unintuitive.
It's buggy, and it crashes more often than any other app I use. God forbid you try to <INSERT BASIC FUNCTIONALITY FAIL>
Seriously, with all the money and resources thrown at this company and this app, you'd think it'd be a little more stable, faster, and reliable. I am literally forced to use this app at work...
Response:
Mine doesnt crash and havent seen any bugs and I use it for 28 hours a day - unlike <INSERT COMPETITOR NAME> which is buggy, and it crashes more often than any other app I use. God forbid you try to <INSERT BASIC FUNCTIONALITY FAIL>.
If we had teams thrown at us, we would for sure complain a lot.
I can not do this either in Cisco Webex.
The things you're asking it to do seem normal, but each of those things is a different device with a different context. It's not surprising to me that it's hard to switch contexts.
I regularly start meetings on my home WiFi and then get in a vehicle and switch to cellular data. I've only have had short interruptions, which is MUCH better than most tools I've used.
Kudos to Zoom for convincing lots of companies that they need it in addition to that stuff when arguably they really don't. MS has narrowed the feature gap enough that you could do without it. But still, it's fashionable enough that lots of companies pay to use that in addition to MS Live. For most responsible CIOs that's an obvious way to cut cost waiting to happen of course.
I am CTO/CIO/CPO at a small startup. We have so far kept MS, Adobe, and Atlassian out of our door. We use Google Docs, Meets, Github, Figma, Asana, and a few other things instead. So our SAAS bills are lowish and we get a lot of value. Perfectly happy with that setup. And Meets is pretty nice to use as it just runs in a browser without insisting on installing an app that contains a browser that runs a webapp.
exactly what I meant. And users should complain about their CIOs rationale, when they choose a product ignoring usability, openness, etc
There's a huge stack of APIs between you and your headphones.
Quick dirty copy of Slack, bundle it ("for free") with the Office which people already pay for. Adjust the bundle price few months later...
It's because they have a bad culture and developers who could never care about their capitalist hell products.
Once your company is stuck into a contract with them it's almost impossible to change, so why do they care about fixing anything.
Also it's incredibly slow.
https://github.com/Azure/webapps-deploy/issues/60
And the fact that we're locked into using it means I have to take my 50 second netlify deploy and migrate it to a 15 minute ADO deploy, losing out on loads of features and gaining none.
App Service can run containerised workloads just fine.
In Visual Studio it is more-or-less as simple as right-clicking a project and selecting "Add -> Docker support": https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/contai...
In Azure DevOps pipelines or GitHub Actions, it's also quite simple to add a container build step: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/eco...
In the actual Azure subscription you just need to create an Azure Container Registry resource to host the image. I believe you can also use Docker Hub, if you prefer.
Then in App Service just host the container image instead of the raw code: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/app-service/tutorial...
That should be about it. The effect of this is to "zip up" your loose 'js' files (or whatever), making deployments much faster. The build happens before this step, so the container image is "final" and will run directly without needing any npm steps or whatever at deployment time.
If you need something like hot-reload or similar very fast deployment times, then App Service is probably not the right environment for you. However, with containers its often possible to have a fast local deployment edit-build-test loop and then have the same environment running in production. This is the main benefit of containers!
It's a basic next.js app, nothing special.
I tried the app service config on GitHub actions and it was ridiculous to say the least. 15 minutes to copy the files over and then it didn't launch the app correctly even after I specified how to launch it. Pitfalls at every step.
It's like the UI was designed by a child.
You're saying a lot of "just", and to be honest those tasks aren't simple things that I can just do. For example having a docker registry that I now have to secure and babysit is not what I'm here for.
I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that Azure is good.
Sorry if I'm sounding defensive here, but I'm really not into having a worse experience just to fit I to Microsoft's hellscape.
They compete on price with companies that don’t give a shit about employees. Which is most.
I got late to a meeting because Teams would crash. When I opened Teams a few minutes before the call, my laptop froze. I thought my laptop performance would improve once enough memory has been allocated to Teams, but it never recovered from the freeze. I had to reboot and start Teams. It finally connected a few minutes after the proposed start time. The HR staff were in a bitter tone by then.
I couldn't get the job. I wish Microsoft would compensate me for a loss caused by their product. They shouldn't be allowed to ship sloppy software under their massive userbase and Microsoft brand (a supposed promise of quality).
That said, MS has not always been like this; those who remember MSN Messenger, and perhaps even Skype for Business, may realise that despite all the various problems they had, they still seem much better than what Teams is today. Hence it's definitely a degradation.
If I had the time and strong need, I'd try to write a native client for it, but apaprently it's very close to Skype (the MS version, not the original one) for which several 3rd-party clients exist, so the effort there might not be so much. They've even documented at least some of the APIs, e.g.: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/chatmessage-post
After a few decades the pattern doesn’t seem any different than before: some products get worse, sometimes they do something interesting, some products that got worse are then improved, over and over.
Any appearance of a recent declining trend, much less due to sociocultural issues like DEI, are simply due to looking at too-short a time period or only subsets of their ecosystem.
In this sense I think there is almost a stockholm syndrome element where the worse it is, the more people trapped in it feel that that's what makes it good and enterprisey. If it wasn't the only choice why would any put up with it otherwise?
I'm sure in 2043 they'll finally muster up the engineering resources to get copy/paste working in Teams though, for the last 10 customers on Trillion dollar a year enterprise maintenance contracts.