Microsoft won the work from home game by bundling Teams with an O365 subscription that companies were paying for anyway, making it cost-effective for the bean counters to use a "free" crappy tool instead of a paid better one.
Whether this is anticompetitive monopolist behavior in a legal sense is a question for the courts, but it's certainly anticompetitive in spirit, and undoubtedly true that Teams is not winning on merit.
Citation needed.
First off, I don't know if Microsoft did win the work-from-home game. Do you have comparative sales numbers to support that assertion?
Anyway, I'd believe that they won the work-from-home game by...
- bundling Teams in with O365 subscriptions so frugal companies don't need to pay for a separate IM platform subscription, or by
- winning over IT administrators with out-of-the-box Active Directory integration.
Those aren't “more” features, really; they're just the usual, staple bullet points that you expect of every Microsoft productivity application. The feature Teams does need is performance. I don't know a single person who has used any Teams alternative and who still prefers to use Teams, and the chief complaint I hear is about Teams' poor performance. Yes, of course, there will always be those features that people don't know they want until they have it, but when everyone and their dog complains about every possible dimension of poor performance – poor interface responsiveness, high CPU load (“my fan is on!”), poor network utilization (“sorry, my video is worse on Teams”) – you should probably prioritize that.