Agreed. I am required to use Teams at my day job, and it feels like a rushed product from a soulless company--because that's exactly what it is.

Why would that matter? Certainly, important to know the why, but more important is the outcome. "Who are you selling to?" and "Who has the spend/budget?" are most important. Tragic, for sure.

If Teams is problematic enough, and enough upper-middle folks who have to use it are unhappy and want more productive tools, the guys with the spending power may decide otherwise. Salaries are a far bigger expense than chat software licenses; wasting 1% of time of 50 highest-paid employees would tip the scale on numbers alone.

And yet, it's better than the alternatives. It replaced Cisco Jabber at my workplace.

It isnt. Slack is better. Google meet is better. Even Zoom is better and their approach to UX design is randomization.

> It isn't. Slack is better.

"You don't get it Steve, that doesn't matter." [1]

That actually does not matter if Teams is making larger progress than Slack. I prefer Slack over Teams too, but to disregard the market force and market position of Teams is naive.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFcb-XF1RPQ

I don’t disregard its market position. I just don’t have anything to say about it.

Sure, I prefer Slack to Teams, but I'd take almost anything over Jabber, and Slack was never a real option.