I was curious about why someone would have a preference, what does Teams serve that alternatives do not.

But you blanket claimed its fine, its not fine.

I won’t work in a company that forces me to use Teams- its a good proxy for how they think about internal communications and how they feel about staff.

You can claim what you want, I was curious, but don’t come in here telling people its ok to use teams- we’ve established that his options were fucking WebEx- which is also not fine.

▲

close04 a day ago | parent [-]

> you blanket claimed its fine

You’re talking to different people and didn’t even care. This is not fine.

> which is also not fine

You act like your word is law. Which is also not fine. You shouldn’t need someone on the internet reminding you of this.

	▲	dijit a day ago \| parent [-]
		My word doesn’t have to be law, however anyone who has touched any system outside of Teams is universally stating that Teams is bad. That is an important consideration to have if you’re going to be telling people that its fine to inflict it on your workforce. You used cost as a reason but: 1) Teams is a seperate paid license now (since it was anti-competitive- the only way they could have grown such a market share with such a terrible product). 2) There are superior free alternatives. Don’t come up in here, (in a thread where I am asking, genuinely, about what makes Teams a viable and active preference for people) saying its fine without any fucking follow up on why and then get bent out of shape when challenged. Teams is not fine, if you’re working on the product or you have inflicted it on your workforce you should be better- I won’t pretend its ok so that you feel better.