[silverquiet]

> they make their products highly interoperable and integrated.

This does not reflect my experience - I can't make a video call from teams to someone on Zoom; I can't chat with someone on Slack. My iMessage client loses all kinds of functionality when I send a text to someone using Android. I could go on.

I worked at a place that dropped Slack for Teams. Everyone believed that Slack was the better product, but the company already bought Office which bundled Teams while Slack cost money. It's the most obvious anti-competitive practice I've experienced.

[icegreentea2]

The think OP means interoperable and integrated within their garden/product offerings.

[snoopsnopp]

What do you mean by that? I don’t understand.

[quickslowdown]

Teams and Office and SharePoint and Loop are all Microsoft products. They're all integrated tightly with Teams.

That's what they mean by interoperability within the walled garden of Microsoft products.

[kohbo]

Sorry but creating a meeting in teams is almost completely disjointed from the equivalent process on Outlook. Half of the features are missing on the Teams side. I can't even see other people's calendar or add people from my contact list outside of the org. It's terribly integrated.

[frumper]

I think that's your organizations settings. I have virtually the same process to make a meeting in Teams as I do in Outlook. Both are easy. I can definitely add anyone from my contact list, including those outside of my org.

[quickslowdown]

I wasn't commenting on the quality of these integrations. They're shit and I know it. Just pointing out that integration does mean something here

[benfortuna]

And those integrations would be perhaps less shit if they had competition showing them how to/incentivizing them to do it better.