[maronato]

I don’t see how it’s anticompetitive. It’s not like Microsoft or Google make it harder to use Slack or Zoom.

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.

[placatedmayhem]

Offering a product for free or a significant discount with another product where a company has a substantial portion of that market to get a foothold and kill off competition in the free-/cheap-product's market is called "bundling" in anticompetitive regulations.

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...

[proamdev123]

This link doesn’t say what you’re saying it does. From the link:

> 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.

[placatedmayhem]

Teams is not free. It's been bundled for free with certain enterprise contracts. Here's list pricing for Teams:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/compare-micr...

[PeterStuer]

Remember Internet Explorer? Also a 'free' product whose bundeling ran afoul of anti competition regulation.

[cvalka]

Zoom and Slack shall die. Good riddance to both of them.