>Q. What level of security and compliance does Microsoft Teams support?
>A. Microsoft Teams is expected to be Office 365 Tier C compliant at launch. This broad set of global compliance and data protection requirements includes ISO 27001, ISO 27018, EUMC, SOC 1 Type I & II, SOC 2 Type I and II, HIPAA and FERPA. Microsoft Teams also enforces two-factor authentication, single sign on through Active Directory and encryption of data in transit and at rest.
The last time I'd looked into it, Slack was explicitly not HIPAA-compliant and therefore a non-starter for my team. We've basically had to stick to a combination of Hangouts for general chat and internal email for any HIPAA-covered data, so this would be a big win for us.
Sometimes it does take an 800lbs gorilla like Microsoft stepping in to get those techs our way because Microsoft's customer base has to worry about that sort of thing.
Healthcare IT teams tend to run ridiculously lean. There's a much stronger business case for paying a few bucks per user/month than take up expensive and generally highly limited sysadmin time rolling your own.
Chat's may or may not be deemed business records by a prudent attorney and therefore it may be possible to not retain them for reasons similar to those under which computer logs are not maintained. That might make complying with non-realtime HIPAA requirements simpler.
Relative to IT requirements, the trend is toward much higher ratios of machines to IT staff due to virtualization and orchestration. I suspect that over time, healthcare organizations will get more containers.
Anyway, I was not thinking just about healthcare...nor thinking that lack of slack is one of the significant areas in which improvement is needed in the now.
Anyway, there are organizational cultures where free is almost too much money per employee per year...cause I've worked in a few.
I did a very large O365 rollout where Microsoft was willing and able to meet really difficult compliance targets like IRS Pub 1075 and CJIS. They absolutely will meet those and other standards.
And usually large orgs with those kinds of liability questions will have the necessary resources to make those requests.
Responsibility is orthogonal to indemnification regarding claims of liability.
Glad you pointed this out! Really makes me look at Teams in a different (decidedly more positive) light.
Not that I saw it negatively...it just seemed kind of neutral, like Yet-Another-Microsoft-Product that is entering last year's exciting new market.
HITECH and the ACA have forced the industry to start making meaningful steps toward real interop, but I'd say we're at least a decade out from it being less of a nightmare than it is now.
You can't exchange data without thoroughly understanding the clinic workflows that generated it or will be using it. It's all time-consuming and hard.
I work on a patient portal consuming data from the EMR, and even that is tremendously complicated to present medical data safely and correctly to a person.
Sibling comment mentioned wanting to work in Health IT. The big market problem in healthcare is small companies doing good innovation (usable patient-side workflows, modern clinical tools, shiny things) running into the consolidated, massive EMR systems. The first question when they approach a healthcare system will be "Are you integrated with Epic/Cerner/whatever?" and if not, they will be sent away. Or be ready to embark on a very long, slow process and integrate deeply into workflows, data APIs, etc.
When a system consolidates their EMR (driven by real needs but also Meaningful Use incentives), it forces standardization and special one-offs become much harder. Getting a doctor interested in using a new device or software means working within the whole EMR - the staff doesn't have the time or leeway to go use tools that don't integrate, just because a doctor really wants it. That doctor needs to align large groups, get agreement, and it's going to take a lot of time and money.
It all comes down to interoperability/integration. Building cool stuff in healthcare is really easy since most of the tech in use is outdated and slow moving. But interoperability - required to sell into healthcare systems - is really, really tough.
The irony being that those tightly inegrated solutions tend to be some of the worst offenders in terms of being a nightmare for interop and walled-off silos. But they're popular because the pieces they do offer generally work.
And totally agree that the opportunity is there for highly targeted applications that cater to specific healthcare niches because the downside of the huge top-down systems is the fact that they're more generalized. But you have to be able to integrate them into that larger EMR environment for them to be realistically useful.
That said, the facility I'm at now (midsize, ~400 beds) took a best-of-breed approach and... well, there's a reason I say current interop is bad. It's appealing on the clinical side because groups like surgery or the ED or even endo get to run software designed to cater specifically to their needs, but the backend integration ends up being a huge exercise every time anything changes.
I'd love to work in Health IT, what's your company's name ?
That said, that's another area where the industry is in pretty bad shape, but that's a far longer rant.
With Resource List, and Examples good places to dive in a bit.
My favorite little piece of FHIR is that each resource has a maturity level based real world implementations. Eg "FMM1 + the artifact has been tested and successfully exchanged between at least three independently developed systems at a connectathon whose results have been reported to the FHIR Management Group"
Have you heard about https://teamstitch.com/product/
(nope, not affiliated in any way)
When it came out it was basically a copy cat of Slack, with HIPAA and other security standards compliance. (now they've updated the ui)
1) The UI/interaction/UX can (and obviously will) be replicated, which has been slack's biggest value proposition.
2) There's no "stickiness" for companies. None of the data in chat is really a "system of record" and the switching costs are minimal. 3rd party bots/integrations are the only thing that really make it sticky for companies.
3) The IP isn't really all that interesting. Chat based systems have been around since day 1 of the TCP/IP protocol and it's design patterns are pretty well known. In other words, the tech can be replicated.
4) It's not solving a core technology problem for most business without introducing additional problematic externalities. http://www.businessinsider.com/i-used-to-be-obsessed-with-sl...
That's not true where I work. Slack's history is full of valuable information that we use all the time.
One of the (only) things I like about Skype is that message history is held in an sqlite database on the local machine. So I have a record of every single message for the last 5 years.
I think it's a great product experience, but as you say, without adding more value, it can be replicated by Zulip/Rocket.Chat/Mattermost/Cisco Spark/Microsoft Team/ you name it.
I think you are overly discounting the advantage for Slack having done this for 4 years already.
You are joking, right? Or do you actually believe that pretty much anyone can trivially develop similar tools that have feature-parity?
Then think about all the good work that was done over the last 20 years, and how that really solid base turned into the best mobile office solution.
Office has an extremely deep moat and their continued O365 efforts are deepening it.
Now, you can have a Google Apps, Slack, Trello, and Evernote alternative for your business under one subscription. Even if you choose the plan for installed Office applications on your computer, the price is still much more attractive than having to get a subscription for every one of the competitors.
Edit: They even have a Zapier and IFTTT competitor:
I wish instead of just throwing it at the world, hoping for people to figure out what to do with it, Google had used it as infrastructure to build a variety of applications.
The problem with Wave was that it was too open ended for most people to figure out. Those who did figure out, loved it, and were burnt when Google shut it down. I still don't think there is a good equivalent to wave at the moment.
Yeah, this tallies with my experience. I was in two separate Wave teams (Waves?), one for a six-person software team and one for a large-ish social group of non-technical people. The software team took to it immediately and loved it; the social group was mostly baffled and used it sparingly.
If Google had only iterated on it they'd be a in a great spot right now, but I guess eventually every big technology company has their "Microsoft moment" when they kill a product only to see that category take off years later.
It was built on XMPP, and allowed anyone to spin up their own Wave server that could talk to any other such server (iirc).
At the time Google (and also Facebook) used XMPP as the backend for their messaging service, and was even working on a extension for video and voice communications (libjingle?).
But then all that was scuttled, and they moved the messaging onto the proprietary Hangout. I guess they could not figure out how to monetize a distributed system like XMPP and instead switched to putting everything in a silo.
Then again, Hangout was tied closely to G+, and G+ was the brainchild of a ex-MS exec that was described as a "cookie licker" (meaning he would try to tie whatever other projects he learned about into his own) after his departure from Google.
I think Larry Page made the company more product focused and a few successes, like Hangouts, "validated" that it was the better approach than focusing on open protocols.
Nah! Google wave would be a massive failure even today. Google simply does not understand other people. Why on earth was Google Wave "invites based" ? Imagine Slack being invite based do you think it would have worked ?
If Google Wave was an enterprise produce Google should have marketed it that way. They did not. I did not even understand WTF it was in first place.
I dont want my boss to see the reply I am drafting for heavens sake. It was like they built id to show how good engieers they were.
Actually you made a great case for why these guys should partner, integrate their products in a clean, natural way, and then make it as easy as ever for existing and new customers to hop onto all at once -- combo SaaS.
Opposite here. Forced to use Google Apps to write documents and it's a pain in the arse. Wish I had Office.
Long term/philosophically this is is unwise, because you're locking your business' data into one company and then it dictates the direction in which your ideas can expand.
Google Apps aside, all these apps are developed by highly creative and agile (fast) companies.
MS is just an executive switch away from being a monolithic elephant once again..
But your comment made me wonder about the problem of building a company which becomes a feature of a bigger competitor: I wonder what the folks at Slack, Trello and Evernote think about this new competition. Is this going to actually compete head on?
I wish it was otherwise. As you said, they do have a good suite of apps at a fair price
It was extremely slow and buggy on android. It wouldn't sync
A notable feature that we're missing on Macs is recording in Skype for Business (aka Lync) meetings. We only have two Windows notebooks in our team of 20, so we have to rely on them joining every important meeting to capture a recording.
 Another part of the decision is WSL, which might enable me to abolish my work VM.
OneNote is great on the Mac! Your experience is so different from mine that I'm guessing you used it long before I did. Try it again because it's beeen great for at least a year.
It also includes a bunch of other stuff that I'm far less excited about; I wish they had gone with a more a la carte approach. I'm not confident that I'll be able to easily integrate this with the identities that I routinely use.
Also, it seems like an unwieldy name -- "I'll 'team' that to you", or "let's discuss this on 'team'"? I guess you'll just use "chat" and assume that context conveys the remainder.
>Consider your typical Chief Information Officer in the pre-Cloud era: for various reasons she has bought in to some aspect of the Microsoft stack (likely Exchange). So, in order to support Exchange, the CIO must obviously buy Windows Server. And Windows Server includes Active Directory, so obviously that will be the identity service. However, now that the CIO has parts of the Microsoft stack in place, she is likely to be much more inclined to go with other Microsoft products as well, whether that be SQL Server, Dynamics CRM, SharePoint, etc. True, the Microsoft product may not always be the best in a vacuum, but no CIO operates in a vacuum: maintenance and service costs are a huge concern, and there is a lot to be gained by buying from fewer vendors rather than more. In fact, much of Microsoft’s growth over the last 15 years can be traced to Ballmer’s cleverness in exploiting this advantage through both new products and also new pricing and licensing agreements that heavily incentivized Microsoft customers to buy ever more from the company.
What I remember most is that she acted more like a salesperson than an actual help at getting SharePoint working in the company. She'd relentlessly suggest features or solutions that happened to require a newer version SharePoint, and obviously there were all sorts of other Microsoft solutions that would ease the company's pains.
It seems like a very clever approach, but I couldn't help but hate the role she had, and it made me want to avoid Microsoft at all cost... or at least until I'm not the one affected by the decisions she pushed the company towards, I guess.
Sharepoint by definition required an architect or someone to flesh it out. Microsoft is taking on that role of turning a skeleton into a body.
Their pricing is more like (a made up example): Exchange $2, Sharepoint $2, Skype $2, OR Everything + BI, Teams, Groups, Planner, Flow, PowerApps and whatever else they make/dreamup this week for $3. It makes no sense to buy 2 things from Microsoft over the bundle. The pricing is even more apparent when you look at their mobile management offerings, and its cheaper to buy 4 products than it is to buy 2. So now that you are "getting Teams and Planner for free" you might as well try using them before shelling out for Slack and Trello. Plus compliance worries are handled.
Also, it's fairly easy to "leave exchange and sharepoint document libraries" if your setup and permissions arent complicated. Microsoft is pulling an Apple, and abstracting the filesystem away so you use Planner directly to store planning data, in a proprietary, non exportable format, instead of having a storage locker to store files. These "freebies" exist to make it more painful to leave the ecosystem once you have them up and working. That said i am guessing most companies dont have a ton of buyin to things like Planner or PowerBI yet.
Broad compliance standards support
Data encryption at all times, at-rest and in-transit
Multi-factor authentication for enhanced identity protection
For us, the API integrations are huge. Slack is our one-stop hub for finding out what's happening throughout the company with integrations for PM tools, Monitoring, Alerting, Deployments, Build Systems, Support Emails, AnswerHub, GitHub, etc.
And of course, giphys.
1) The use of GIFs/memes. While this seems silly, it is actually a big deal because it lowers the formalization of communication. Having used this product, you just have much better free flowing conversation and many times these "fun" items help you get the message across significantly better (ex. asking for updates or bumping things can now be done in a funny way).
2) Creation of a horizontal matrix. Having tabs is awesome because it makes information more compartmentalized and helps keep the priority the same on each screen. This essentially adds an extra layer of depth into the product without overcomplicating things (and imagine one day having ability to live edit documents on a tab, while chatting and seeing metrics). Keeping a multi-dimensional communication design model is very scalable to mixed reality too.
Essentially I see MSFT Teams as "Slack meets Google Hangouts meets Email", and see it doing very well from a product sense. However, their business strategy of bundling with O365 will not help them hit SMB, which is a conscious decision I think they made. I would have actually used Teams as a trojan horse to capture stickiness and then upsell users to O365, but overall still excited to see where this goes.
Slack $7/month/user just for teams :///
anyhow i hate office so i am gonna stick to gsuite..
Currently it costs $12.50 per enterprise user per month.
To put it another way, look at something like SharePoint. Microsoft will happily tell you it has a ton of users. They might tell you that it's quite profitable. But SharePoint is a just a terrible piece of shit that everyone hates but IT departments drag everyone to it kicking and screaming.
So subscriptions will get purchased, contracts signed. Microsoft will make money. But will they take mindshare? Maybe Slack won't be able to differentiate enough. Time will tell but today employees actually want Slack.
Is this the worst ad in the history of advertising? HUGE publicity for Microsoft, with a schoolboy level of condescending, passive aggressive nonsense. Not sure what they were thinking with this one, especially with an opening line doing nothing but praising their competitor.
The confidence(arrogance) is astounding.
It's symbolic of the typical winner-take-all markets in the IT sphere, unlike the term exponential, which is constantly misused and inaccurate in most cases (except, perhaps, for Moore's law on a limited time interval)
Slack doesn't have a box to stand on to tell others how to treat people.
After experiencing the train wreck that is Skype, I'm definitely not getting my hopes up for another Microsoft chat app.
But don't worry, you can continue parroting that line for another 20 years like "embrace, extend, extinguish". It's not like people make mistakes and learn from them. That never happens.
I had a old Windows 7 laptop which I updated to Windows 10, and promptly the touchpad right click stopped working. I didn't really need that laptop at that point, so I just threw it away and also decided that I am never going to use Windows OS after that point unless forced to for work purposes.
To me, this "offer" takes top spot as the current gold standard for shitty support.
> The author has chosen not to show responses on this story. You can still respond by clicking the response bubble.
So not only is the arrogance higher than ever, you can throw cowardly in there as well.
Wonder how long until Slack upgrades their compliance.
And then it popped up randomly over an hour after closing it, happily informing me that I got the latest updates. Thank you, but no.
The web app refuses to work with anything but the very latest browsers. Why? Probably no reason at all. It also doesn’t work in IE, which is kind of sad. It also consumes humongous amounts of memory, as does the desktop app.
The avatars, blurry too, of course, are embedded as Base64 Data URIs. Why?
All in all this is yet another collaboration tool from Microsoft. It feels very rushed.
Hmm, kind of looks like it, doesn't it?
Is Skype next?
Even if you completely ignore the non-Teams aspect of it, you are still paying less money than for Slack.
Unless by overhead you mean whatever is the exact opposite of overhead.
In any case, this looks like a much better value proposition than Slack. However, I can test Slack in a second by going to their website. If I want to test MS Teams, I need to think about Office 365, sign up, find where to enable it, etc. Right now signing up for Slack is friction-less.
That would have been a huge omission.
Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft (Azure) but have no relation to Office or Microsoft Teams.
It is about the technology platform, because the amount of resources necessary to ensure feature parity is a function of the platfrom. Word for Windows and Word for Mac are probably two separate giant monsters of early-90's C++ and keeping them in sync is agony. Assuming Teams is written in Electron, the amount of work is nowhere near the same; not having feature parity across operating systems is probably harder than having it.
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HROqnw-nf4
Still, no matter how nice that codebase is, I assume they can't beat Electron for ease of X-platform compatibility.
Our small team within a giant org is using hipchat, but it's near impossible to get anyone else from the org on there for shared projects. Maybe they'll be more receptive to MS Team.
You always need to flirt with your customers and mostly - with the influencers! Microsoft used this strategy to flirt with developers!
And the app downloads page is here:
I'm getting an error on my end though after following their activation steps so I need to figure out why it's doing that. (Shows me "errorCode=AdminUserLicenseNotPresent" so maybe there's an extra step I have to complete that wasn't mentioned)
-1 for no shame when coping the design.
But, seriously, this is likely more like Microsoft Groove (originally from Groove Networks) brought to the web. This idea has been around for a very long time.
the team chats are threaded with embedded documents, likes, emojis etc
I have been saying for a while that Slack is not a defensible product and that their customer base is notoriously fickle.
As microsoft, google, and apple begin integrating chat more directly into the OS Slack will see its market share vanish.
Excel can also be very effective as a small database - I did some volunteer IT work for a co-op grocery store that runs their entire business operation off spreadsheets.
Let me take you through my workflow. I write content for companies, e.g. whitepapers, interviews, blogs and the like. If I have to deal with only one internal "stakeholder", its not a problem.
Briefing, first draft, one additional call, final version.
Now, as soon as you more or "higher" people join the creation process, the amount of digital files increases, as does the e-mail-chain, as doe the calls.
If I can just join a company chat about, throw in a document into the mix and get one after the other to sign of on the documents, that would cut down on the amount of version beeing sent around and thus make life easier for me.
We tried using Teams last night for release coordination. This misfeature made it practically unusable. It's a seriously dumb feature. I'm still a bit baffled that someone actually designed and developed it, thinking it was a good idea.