SharePoint has fared so poorly in my Fortune 250 that the company rolled out Teams as its spiritual savior. Now, Teams has fared so poorly that the company is going to re-introduce the software next week -- with some Zoom meetings (uh, don't we already own Skype FOR BUSINESSSSSS?) -- and give away swag to get people re-interested.
> This is where Teams thrives: if you fully commit to the Microsoft ecosystem, one app combines your contacts, conversations, phone calls, access to files, 3rd-party applications, in a way that “just works”...
This is another part of the problem. Again, living in the litigious, policy-addled state of corporate IT that Microsoft has created, our company has turned off message history on Skype for dubious legal reasons, so this compelling integration is MIA for us. I suspect we are not alone in this decision.
> Teams has fared so poorly that the company is going to re-introduce the software next week -- with some Zoom meetings (uh, don't we already own Skype FOR BUSINESSSSSS?)
Teams entirely replaces Skype for Business when you actually turn functionality on. The real WTF is why you'd use Zoom instead of Teams itself for a Webinar to explain how Teams works or Streams (the "Business YouTube-like" in O365/MS365), unless they aren't confident they actually turned on all the Skype for Business replacement features correctly.
I agree that the fact that Microsoft leaves so many "core" parts of the application able to be turned off by over-zealous IT micromanagers (often at the behest of over-conservative corporate lawyers, yes) really does not help at all, and leaves too many companies just shooting themselves in the foot and wondering why their foot hurts so much when they use the software they way they've configured it.
When ISO-9001 came along, the original intent was simply to 1) document what you should do in order to produce parts to your specifications, and 2) document how well you followed those processes. Simple, right? Companies made WAAAY more work for themselves than they needed to, because the people who were assigned to assure compliance went crazy, carving out kingdoms for themselves, making all sorts of ridiculous rules and documentation demands that actually had nothing to do with implementing the spirit of the standard.
When SOX came along, I saw the same thing happen to IT. The concept was the same: 1) document your separation of duties and authority, and 2) document how well you were working in regards to that. What we got was a complete, secondary industry of consultancy which demanded ridiculous things, which did nothing to improve security or compliance, and onerous documentation of all the things that were missing the point.
I blame Microsoft for being complicit in giving corporations the ability to, for instance, prevent a user from changing his desktop background, as though this had anything whatsoever to do with computer security or financial regulation compliance. There are HUNDREDS of options like this in AD policies. The ability to, for example, turn off Skype conversation histories, is a perfect example of something that Microsoft enables in the name of "security" or "compliance," but which actually does NOTHING but inconvenience users. (There are open-source libraries to re-enable the functionality on GitHub. I know someone who wrote an application to do it. Or you can, you know, just copy-and-paste.) And it was the Microsoft-funded trade press which told all the CIO's of all the Fortune 500 companies that this was the sort of thing that had to be done in order to comply with SOX.
That's why a blame Microsoft, but that got long-winded. Sorry.
Most of these aren't proactively done by Microsoft - it's usually a customer who says "in order for us to purchase N licenses, we need features X, Y, and Z, where X/Y/Z are quite often "disable/customize this behavior"
> This is where Teams thrives: if you fully commit to the Microsoft ecosystem, one app combines your contacts, conversations, phone calls, access to files, 3rd-party applications, in a way that “just works”...
This is another part of the problem. Again, living in the litigious, policy-addled state of corporate IT that Microsoft has created, our company has turned off message history on Skype for dubious legal reasons, so this compelling integration is MIA for us. I suspect we are not alone in this decision.