Microsoft Set To Face EU Competition Charges Over Teams Software (ft.com) 36
The European Commission is set to issue new antitrust charges [non-paywalled link] against Microsoft over concerns that the tech giant is undermining competitors to its videoconferencing app Teams, according to FT. The move comes after Microsoft offered concessions last month, including a global plan to unbundle Teams from other software such as Office, in an attempt to avoid regulatory action.
The EU officials remain concerned that the company's efforts do not sufficiently ensure fairness in the market, the newspaper said. Rivals worry that Microsoft will make Teams run more compatibly with its own software compared to competitor apps, and that the lack of data portability makes it difficult for existing Teams users to switch to alternatives. The case, which originated from a formal complaint submitted by Slack (now owned by Salesforce) in 2020, is now escalating with the Commission's impending formal charge sheet against Microsoft.
The EU officials remain concerned that the company's efforts do not sufficiently ensure fairness in the market, the newspaper said. Rivals worry that Microsoft will make Teams run more compatibly with its own software compared to competitor apps, and that the lack of data portability makes it difficult for existing Teams users to switch to alternatives. The case, which originated from a formal complaint submitted by Slack (now owned by Salesforce) in 2020, is now escalating with the Commission's impending formal charge sheet against Microsoft.
Yeah sure they'll unbundle Teams from Office (Score:5, Insightful)
And everybody will keep using it because everybody knows [Microsof product + Microsoft product} works better than [Microsoft product + competitor]. Because Microsoft will make sure competitor will be less polished, less well integrated, less stable and less convenient than the fully-integrated Microsoft stack running on the Microsoft OS. Only people who actively dislike Microsoft would even bother trying third party Teams replacements, and those people aren't likely to go with Office to begin with.
Microsoft has done that many times in the past and it got them to the monopolistic position they've been occupying since the 90's.
No (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They've already unbundled Teams from O365. It's not all that much cheaper, something like 50 cents per user per month, but hey.
I've used many services. BlueJeans was great all around, though at the time I used it, it required installing apps on your machine. Then Zoom came around, and they still require you to install the Zoom app.
Teams doesn't actually require you to install anything - it works in a browser even on Linux, making it useful for meetings as you're not installing a ton of crap on your PC.
That'
Re: (Score:2)
Teams doesn't actually require you to install anything - it works in a browser even on Linux, making it useful for meetings as you're not installing a ton of crap on your PC.
YMMV but Teams 1) does not work with Firefox on my computers so I have to launch chromium, 2) on my linux laptop, Teams+chromium sucks so much CPU and network bandwith I have to exit Thunderbird/Davmail which somehow competes for the bandwidth (on a wired university network), 3) on my linux desktop, there is no sound, 4) fails to do screen sharing (black screen).
As a comparison, on the same two machines, Zoom, Google meet and Skype work wonderfully (and work in a browser, nothing to install).
Teams is also h
Re: (Score:1)
> That's really it's biggest feature - it works - Firefox, Chrome/WebKit etc
Interesting that it works for you on Firefox. I just tried it, Win 10, and it says "Hmm. Your browser version isn't supported. Quickest solution? Download the desktop app."
and
" here are the supported browsers
Microsoft Edge - Install for free
Google Chrome - Install for free"
Re: (Score:2)
That worked really well for Internet Explorer and Edge.
Teams is such shit tier software that it probably only needs basic integration to enable people to switch away from it. It's actually kind of amazing how bad Teams is. Like somehow the notifications are both delayed or fail to appear at all, and also spammed into your Outlook inbox and Windows notifications where you don't want them. And then again in a pointless "activity" tab that exclusively shows you stuff you have already looked at and decided to i
Re: (Score:1)
I actively dislike teams. I think it sucks in every possible way.
I will continue to use teams.
Why?
Because my employer requires teams.
Why?
I dunno. But probably because it already supports Microsoft products and isn't going to bother supporting some other vendor's product, no matter HOW superior it is.
Why?
Because the decisions don't care about employee misery.
Re: (Score:2)
And everybody will keep using it because everybody knows [Microsof product + Microsoft product} works better than [Microsoft product + competitor]. Because Microsoft will make sure competitor will be less polished, less well integrated, less stable and less convenient than the fully-integrated Microsoft stack running on the Microsoft OS. Only people who actively dislike Microsoft would even bother trying third party Teams replacements, and those people aren't likely to go with Office to begin with.
Microsoft has done that many times in the past and it got them to the monopolistic position they've been occupying since the 90's.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
I want Teams to be less integrated, I would love it if teams stopped trying to force me to do things they way it wants me to. Case in point, it continually tries to open any Office file internally rather than opening it externally in Excel/Word/Outlook like a normal person would fucking want it to.
We all know the only reason people are using Teams instead of Slack is that Microsoft is giving Teams away. This is exactly the kind of anti-competitive behaviour that Mi
Dependence on MS Teams will be its own punishment (Score:2)
Just like Internet Explorer - using it is the path of least resistance at the start, but eventually:
* MS stops innovating/improving
* the world moves on
* MS users are left with a sub-par experience, and no easy way out
Re: (Score:2)
Ype, that _is_ the MS business model. Lock people in as much as they can, because they sure cannot compete on quality.
Slack Welcomes Competition (Score:1)
I'm reminded of Slack's post from 2016: https://slack.com/blog/news/de... [slack.com]
I wonder if they'd write the same thing today.
Re:Slack Welcomes Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need Teams for that. Teams is just using SharePoint on the backend for both regular files and Office document
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this up by 1,000. People don't realize Teams is a botched job of taping SharePoint and S4B together. Hence why it runs like crap, also because it had so little actual work to make a good product...they just did the minimal viable product. As noted, mapping Explorer to any SP site/Teams site is the feature no one talks about.
If anyone would actually give Webex a try they would realize how much better it is than MS Teams. Sure, its different than Slack and Discord. But the Webex app for meetings and chat
Re: (Score:2)
Are you retarded? Drag and drop any file to the slack window and it's shared with the person/channel.
Wow that solves all of my problems—except that does not work well collaboratively in groups like when multiple people have to make edits and the whole team has to see them. Also Slack is completely E2EE so anything that is sent should is protected, right? No? Hmmm it is like a messaging app does not meet all the needs of collaboration. It is like Office collaboration features works best in Office.
Bundling (Score:2)
Bundling is the only way Microsoft can get people to use their new software.
When's the last time you took the initiative to get software from Microsoft, rather than having that software forced into your system because it was bundled with something you are already using, like Windows or Office? Often you do not have the option to exclude it from the update, or to remove it from your system afterwards.
They should face charges... (Score:2)
Does Anybody Like Teams? (Score:3)
At my last job, we had a buyout, and the (Clueless) new Owner was a Teams Fanatic, to the point of being yelled at for forgetting that all internal communication had to go through Teams.
Nobody in our Office liked it (and not because it was "different"; but because it was excreble).
Nobody else I know has anything good to say about it, either.
So, who (besides my former boss), actually likes (rather than is just forced to use!), Teams, and Why?
Re: (Score:2)
So, who (besides my former boss), actually likes (rather than is just forced to use!), Teams, and Why?
The main reason I heard from the IT department was Teams was free (with Office) but we had to pay for Slack. Or answer was: "We use Slack because it is better." This was years ago, and I am not sure if there have been pricing differences since then.
Re: (Score:2)
"Teams was free" has changed to "we are already using Teams, why would we change?". I was in the MS meeting with our IT. MS literally said "we get paid if you deploy Teams, so lets deploy Teams!". Everyone except meet thought "well this is a GREAT idea! Lets do that!"
Have they've tried installing it? (Score:3)
Now strictly speaking they would never force a company to open source their products, but really if they want to be fully non-anticompetitive, that is the most reasonable step. I would go as far, as to demand the software is released open source, and with build keys so you can build it yourself and verify against the official builds. I would do this for Teams, Office, Windows, and all software.
I'm not saying the software has to be given away for free, you can still charge for it, and you can still license it, but it should be open and available to customers. Another important point, it MUST compile, build and be usable on ALL major platforms, without resorting with using a web interface. This means Electron is also effectively banned, you have to use the native frameworks such as GTK and QT to build the interface. You can still have a web version, but you MUST make a desktop version available.
solaris, really? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be a Linux version of Teams, not anymore, but the web version works fine, for as much as Teams can be "fine". The old Linux Teams app, while discontinued, still works (but for how long?).
Teams uses Electron, that is, even on Windows, it runs in a browser, and it will work in mostly the same way on any platform with a decent browser (works with Chrome/ium and Firefox).
But then you say Electron should be banned, make up your mind then. As much as I hate Electron and web technologies for desktop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Teams desktop app used to use Electron, and that was terrible, but the rewrite in 2023 replaced that with Edge Webview2
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. Quote the little fascist you are.
Tell us how else you would require us to run our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly Think Microsoft is Right Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Honestly Think Microsoft is Right Here (Score:2)
Perhaps, but where the U.S. government was wrong was by not splitting up Microsoft in 2000. Windows and Office (365) both enjoy too great market dominance, and coupling those two things together creates a highly anti-competitive situation. Both products are key pillars of a monopoly, and they should be forced to stand alone.
The EU, per usual, just wants to force painful concessions and fines. They do not care if they are right or make sense. Since they lack the power to enact meaningful change, they instead
Everyone I know that uses it is forced to, (Score:1)
What about MDE? (Score:1)
Why stop at Teams? EU could take a look at bundling of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.
Re: (Score:1)
They could even look at the bundling of "MicroSoft" itself. Force it to unbundle into two companies, "Micro" and "Soft".
It's trash (Score:1)