Not to defend Teams but having to visit an AppStore to download a separate app is a hassle for most users who tend to use what's already on their system out of the box and tend to happy that way with the lower friction. Those who are unhappy with Teams, can and always do download and use another app.
Similarly, it's why iMessage gained wide adoption, became and stayed the de facto messaging app on iOS despite the users being able to go on the AppStore and download any other free cross platform messenger. It was already on their phones and it worked well enough not to push users to look elsewhere.
So if we can file an antitrust investigation in Microsoft for bundling Teams with Windows, why don't we also go after Apple for bundling iMessage with iOS under the same logic? Or after Google for monopolizing the web browser market with Chrome? Where does the buck stop on these ecosystems that have monopolies in their respective sectors?
We already went through something similar nearly 15 years ago when Windows copies sold in EU would not come with IE preinstalled but would prompt you to choose which of the 4 major browsers at the time (IE, FF, Chrome, Opera) you would like installed (while now those same browsers would be FF and 3 flavors of Chrome, how ironic). Was a good idea at the time that needs updated and refreshed for modern platforms and tools, not just Teams.
I think you are involuntarily given a great exemple against the point you are trying to make.
WhatsApp is the de facto default messenger even on iOS and despite having to go the AppStore to install it in most of Europe and South America.
The situation has a lot to do with Android not bundling a default messenger. So yes, competition authorities are very much right to be investigating bundling. It’s a real attack against free and fair competition.
Plus it’s not like you are not actually paying for Teams in your subscription. Actually you are even if you don’t use it which is silly. Products should be sold by themselves with a proper price tag.
>Plus it’s not like you are not actually paying for Teams in your subscription. Actually you are even if you don’t use it which is silly.
Well I'm also paying for Spotify subscription but I never listen to Justin Biber yet he's still on the platform I'm paying for anyway, but that's just how bundles work.
Would be nice as a consumer to cherry pick lower priced plans specifically on the exact pieces of SW or products we want out of the larger pool/catalogue, but then I doubt many SaaS would be in business if every customer would just choose only the specific pieces that they need and not get everything as a bundle.
Or maybe it would work from a business PoV, I dunno, but maybe then in a nefarious way.
That’s not comparable and you know it. Spotify offers to you is a software and a subscription to their music catalogue. The music is content. The different pieces of software in Office 365 are not. They all do widely different things. You could argue that word, excel and PowerPoint somehow go together if you squint hard enough (I don’t and don’t think they should be bundled either) but Teams does something entirely different and was only brought there for opportunistic reasons (as does Outlook actually).
> then I doubt many SaaS would be in business if every customer would just choose only the specific pieces that they need and not get everything as a bundle.
Maybe the issue is the SaaS business model then. But somehow I doubt it because Slack managed fine because Microsoft started unfairly undercutting them.
> Those who are unhappy with Teams, can and always do download and use another app.
Not if you don't control your machine like most corporate users? Anyway Slack was installed on my image before Teams existed. Then the company goes well why are we paying for Slack when we have Teams?
>Then the company goes well why are we paying for Slack when we have Teams?
To play the devil's advocate, that's the bean counters' job, no? Otherwise, whithout any oversight over finances, the expenses can easily spiral out of control and hurt the bottom line. Probably no big deal in the wealthy US where VC money is plentiful, but in Europe where start-ups need to be scrappy, it starts to add up.
As a consumer, I also ask myself, "well if I pay for Netflix, Prime, etc, can I just get rid of most of them and only keep one?"
Of course but MS has no incentive to compete on merit when Teams is "free" and the users are worse off for it. This sucks. We're not going to get paid more because our IM solution is cheaper but our job will suck that much more.
the element missing here is an old idea -- appliance versus tool. Post-Industrial revolution, inventions of all kinds could be mass produced and marketed, but to whom? for what? The idea of 'appliance' is as you say.. consumer wants it for a function, they buy it, it should work.
