And those places use it because it’s free. You’re already paying for Exchange or Office, so Teams comes free. Nobody believes it’s the best product, but it’s 70% as good as Slack for free.
At work we just transfered from zoom to google meet. We did this while everyone who expressed an opinion agreed that zoom is simply a superior product. And we did it because “we are already paying for it with our google docs subscription”.
It is just so anti-competitive I can’t even believe we collectively let this happen.
In fact, Google makes it really easy to integrate Zoom into Google calendar, and Microsoft has slack integrations for all their products. One can even argue that the office experience in slack is better than in Teams.
That’s very pro-competition IMO.
Indeed, this is exactly what is happening with Teams compared to, say, Slack (which is generally regarded as the better team chat) or Zoom (better video conferencing).
Read more here: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
> For competitive purposes, a monopolist may use forced buying, or "tie-in" sales, to gain sales in other markets where it is not dominant and to make it more difficult for rivals in those markets to obtain sales. This may limit consumer choice for buyers wanting to purchase one ("tying") product by forcing them to also buy a second ("tied") product as well.
Teams is free, whether it’s obtained with Office or downloaded separately.
Giving away a product for free doesn’t violate anti competition regulations.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/compare-micr...