Not really I think, considering that MS bought GitHub, with all of its already existing culture. I see this move as them homogenizing the infrastructure. And also not willing to pay to another company for a product that's actually their competition.
My point was: GitHub as an organization didn't choose Teams willingly, and are still paying for Slack and only using Teams for video conferencing. Of all the explanations of why that might be, the easiest to land on is "because Teams just isn't that good."
I haven't used slack but broadly speaking Teams / Zoom / all of the other platforms I've used have been roughly the same, in that they all get the job of text and (usually) video communications done. Some might be a bit nicer to use than others but largely it doesn't matter which one you use as long as everyone is on the same platform.
In my current work, it’s 100% teams. I’d be doing in my heels over swapping to teams as well if I was GitHub, using it for any kind of text communication is such a massive downgrade.
HN of all places should know better than to believe that people using one thing instead of another must mean the other thing is worse.
This. Companies are cutting costs. Teams may not be the best to use, but it doesn't make sense to have multiple chat solutions.
Even if they were paying 10$ per user, it's basically the salary of one non-lower level engineer to have cross-company communication they are already used to.
And corporate espionage is more prevalent than you may think. Can you absolutely guarantee 100% that the competitor, like Zoom in China, isn't sniffing their video traffic or recordings to some of their most sensitive internal business discussions?