Microsoft Facing Formal EU Complaint Over Teams Video App (bloomberg.com) 19
Microsoft's attempt at avoiding deeper European Union scrutiny of its Teams video-conferencing app fell flat with the bloc's antitrust enforcers readying a formal complaint against the firm's conduct. From a report: Microsoft's recent proposal to split its Teams from a broader business software package and sell it to customers separately with an annual discount wasn't enough to satisfy regulators' concerns, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The European Commission is preparing a statement of objections to send to the company, which could come in the next few months, the people said. At the end of August, Microsoft attempted to allay concerns raised by the EU's antitrust arm as part of a new investigation into how it ties Teams to its Office 365 and Microsoft 365 packages. The EU's investigation followed a complaint from Salesforce's messaging platform Slack some three years ago.
European != American (Score:5, Informative)
Once again, the Europeans show they're not "letter of the law" type people, and much more rely on the "spirit" of it. MS were told quite clearly what the concerns were, they tried to half-bake a response, and the EU will tell them where to stick that idea.
Microsoft were up to their old tricks here, and they know it. They tried to get video conf market share by giving away their product on the back of another that people already had - all at the expense of Zoom and the like. I'm glad it hasn't washed at all with the EU - once again showing they're far more pro-consumer than their counterparts elsewhere in the world.
Re:European != American (Score:5, Interesting)
The downside here is that more competition in the video meeting market means more shitty apps you need to attend meetings with different people.
I'd like to see the EU require interoperability. They are doing so with instant messaging software under the Digital Markets Act, with some platforms being declared "gatekeepers" and requiring them to open up. There are already open standards for video chat, and WhatsApp is allowing 3rd party apps now.
Re: (Score:2)
The downside here is that more competition in the video meeting market means more shitty apps you need to attend meetings with different people.
At no point have I been forced to use any app to attend a meeting for anyone. I have Teams on my PC, and that doesn't prevent me from joining a Google Meet, Zoom, Webex, or any of those others because 100% of them offer web interface for outsiders. Even if I invite you to Teams you don't need to use Teams to join the meeting. No interoperability required.
I'd like to see the EU require interoperability.
It is difficult enough to manage federation of company servers within a single app ecosystem. Simply having the apps talk to each other doesn't fundamental
Re: (Score:3)
No interoperability required.
AFAIK, this is not true of Zoom on Android. You must download the app to join a meeting. This may have changed, but during the Covid-19 pandemic Zoom meeting invites would direct you to download the app. You had to jump through hoops (modify the URL, change the OS string) to get to the web client. So make no mistake: These companies really really want you to install their client app. The only thing holding this back is competition. If one of the meeting providers gets enough market share they will shu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Switched from WebEx to Teams (Score:4, Informative)
My U.S. company switched from Cisco WebEx to Teams in 2020 because Teams was "free" with all of our other M$ stuff. Zoom was clobbering Teams in the video conference market, so M$ quickly implemented more features and integrations for "free" with existing M$ bundle. Now that M$ has gotten enough corporate users, it has implemented price tiers for certain Teams features, even moving some out of free. To me, this is clearly monopoly-like market abuse.
Teams (Score:5, Interesting)
The bane that I have to use because I need a job. Like most people who use Teams. And Office 365. And Windows.
My company recently decided to partially stop doing its own IT and went all in with Microsoft's online services. At some point they informed us employees that they'd bring in a professional photograph to take our mugshots and upload them to our Microsoft profiles - or whatever they are, I tend to keep using Linux 95% of the time at work - so that it will be "nice" to see faces of people you talk to online.
I informed my boss that I refused to give my photo to a semi-fascist notorious privacy-violating American big data company, and that the rest of my information my company shared with them on my behalf just so I can keep my job was bad enough. He refused. I insisted. Long story short: it took 6 fucking weeks ot tense negotiation, but eventually my boss tired before me, relented and let me keep the default no-picture icon in my profile.
I could do that because I'm very well regarded at my company and my job is very secure. Most people can't do what I did and would put their job at risk by flat-out refusing a company mandate.
That's how Microsoft gets data it shouldn't have, and power over people it doesn't deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
No one at Microsoft gives a damn about your mugshot, and they already have all your contact details on their servers. You truly pick the dumbest hills to die on.
Re: (Score:2)
You're very incorrect. Plenty of people at Microsoft care about linking your mug shot to any other internet/technology presence they can to create a larger data profile on you to monetize.
My work account tied into M$ doesn't have my picture. I told my boss when the US has better privacy laws and user protections, I'd do it. I didn't choose to work for a company to help M$ or any other 3rd party build a profile on me, nor should I have to. And don't come back with "just find another job", that's a straw-
Re: (Score:2)
You do you. But ever since my personal wake-up call delivered - involuntarily - by Scott McNealy's in 1999 [wired.com], I've been very meticulous about never having my photo taken by anyone under any circumstances. I'm not gonna break that rule for a stupid Microsoft company facebook.
Windows would be much better (Score:2)
McDonalds next EU (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent argument! /s
Once I pay for and eat a McDonald's combo will it cost me millions to switch to Burger King? Will McDonald's start charging extra for salt on my fries simply because I can no longer afford to switch to Burger King who still offers "free" salt?
Re: (Score:1)
Excellent argument! /s
Once I pay for and eat a McDonald's combo will it cost me millions to switch to Burger King? Will McDonald's start charging extra for salt on my fries simply because I can no longer afford to switch to Burger King who still offers "free" salt?
I wonder if putting Burger King fries in a McDonalds bag will somehow make it rip and I'll be blamed for their shoddy construction because the fries were incompatible.