Makes me laugh additionally because the modern conception of “dogfooding” in tech was popularized by Microsoft itself back in the 1990s. This is the opposite of dogfooding and really is a big condemnation of Teams as a software solution for connected work, at least on paper.
Teams isn’t really designed to do anything, it’s mostly just a conferencing app but it’s absolute rubbish at collaboration work because it essentially doesn’t have any tools in that area. Why Microsoft have never bothered to create their own version of slack I do not know.
Microsoft also owns Github which is the best asynchronous remote workplace tool on the market imo. Yet here we are.
Once you get big enough you just fail upwards. Microsoft, Oracle, Google etc all have to get 1 thing right out of a 100 failures and will still continue to succeed.
I feel like this misses the mark slightly: Microsoft owns Github now, in precisely the same way that Melon Husk owns Xitter. Microsoft didn’t “fail upwards” with github, they used the power of unforgivably offensive amounts of capital to make a purchase of an already-extremely-profitable company, in order to ensure that all of Microsoft’s other software dingleberries, hanging from the fetid prolapse that is their own company, continue to hang on and accomplish the only two things they care about:
that the girth of their proverbial ass does not decrease (and thus continue to keep every market they can firmly under its weight)
And
that its stench continues poisoning the well for anything that could potentially compete with them.
With these two feats accomplished, they can keep their monopoly going.
Teams wasn’t specifically built for remote work though. It was built for internal chat/messaging, document sharing, planning, etc. It is 100% used internally at MS even when people aren’t working remotely.
I know because people at MS have been complaining about it since a few years before the pandemic.
This is a fair point, I was being a bit facetious, but I’m sure there are plenty of teams both totally in person and totally remote using it. It is just bad optics I think. Like if Teams isn’t useful enough for them that they have to be in person despite having an ostensibly full-featured videoconferencing and calendar coordination and chat, the hell good is it for my organization?
“You want to use teams a bit? We have a session here” “I’d be happy to, actually. Not really, but it wouldn’t be bad” “Not really? If you say so, I have a teams session ready right here” “No. No. I’m not stupid” “People use it every day.” “Tell the truth” “It’s a good user experience.” “So are you ready to use it? For 5 minutes?” “No, I’m not an idiot.”
Makes me laugh additionally because the modern conception of “dogfooding” in tech was popularized by Microsoft itself back in the 1990s. This is the opposite of dogfooding and really is a big condemnation of Teams as a software solution for connected work, at least on paper.
Teams isn’t really designed to do anything, it’s mostly just a conferencing app but it’s absolute rubbish at collaboration work because it essentially doesn’t have any tools in that area. Why Microsoft have never bothered to create their own version of slack I do not know.
The parts of Slack that Teams doesn’t fail to make usable are available in unusable form in Azure Devops.
Microsoft also owns Github which is the best asynchronous remote workplace tool on the market imo. Yet here we are.
Once you get big enough you just fail upwards. Microsoft, Oracle, Google etc all have to get 1 thing right out of a 100 failures and will still continue to succeed.
I feel like this misses the mark slightly: Microsoft owns Github now, in precisely the same way that Melon Husk owns Xitter. Microsoft didn’t “fail upwards” with github, they used the power of unforgivably offensive amounts of capital to make a purchase of an already-extremely-profitable company, in order to ensure that all of Microsoft’s other software dingleberries, hanging from the fetid prolapse that is their own company, continue to hang on and accomplish the only two things they care about:
And
With these two feats accomplished, they can keep their monopoly going.
Teams wasn’t specifically built for remote work though. It was built for internal chat/messaging, document sharing, planning, etc. It is 100% used internally at MS even when people aren’t working remotely.
I know because people at MS have been complaining about it since a few years before the pandemic.
This is a fair point, I was being a bit facetious, but I’m sure there are plenty of teams both totally in person and totally remote using it. It is just bad optics I think. Like if Teams isn’t useful enough for them that they have to be in person despite having an ostensibly full-featured videoconferencing and calendar coordination and chat, the hell good is it for my organization?
But github was built for remote async work and since ms acquired it got even more remote work features.
“You want to use teams a bit? We have a session here” “I’d be happy to, actually. Not really, but it wouldn’t be bad” “Not really? If you say so, I have a teams session ready right here” “No. No. I’m not stupid” “People use it every day.” “Tell the truth” “It’s a good user experience.” “So are you ready to use it? For 5 minutes?” “No, I’m not an idiot.”