Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 814 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#281

Post by tryauuum »

llama052 wrote: post #57
jrib wrote: post #45

My company is transitioning to Teams and I find it frustrating. So much so that I collect my complaints in a confluence page. I could be wrong on some of these, so happy to be corrected! No links You can’t link to conversations. This means if you want to add context to a Jira ticket or in a code comment, you can’t easily do so. Inconsistent UI The UI between a Teams channel and a chat with multiple people is not cons…

How hard is it to get codeblocks working instead of them focusing on every use case on the planet. It's so damn terrible.

Backticks suck, but you can insert code block with syntax highlighting from menu

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#283

Post by jeffrallen »

krauses wrote: post #217

I’ve used Teams every day all day for the past 4+ years and I have had minor issues with it ~5 times. Hundreds of my fellow co-workers use it and I’ve not heard anyone run into the consistent issues you’ve described. We use it for 100% of our conference calls, sales calls, 1:1 working sessions, all-hands (hundreds of attendees), virtual trainings, new-hire onboarding, etc… I’d say it’s the most useful software we use…

If you use it for 100% of your sales calls, your probably not making all the sales you could be. It is very difficult to use Teams as an external to the org user. Some of your clients are being alienated by Teams.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#284

Post by ajot »

Kostic wrote: post #243
jknoepfler wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communications software needs to run when and only when I want it to run. Who in the heck are you to tell me when to run an application on a device I own?

Do you also start/stop the modem on your phone whenever you need it? For the majority of people it makes sense to have a comms app always running as they come to expect that from the smartphones. Granted, there should be an easy way to configure this behavior for advanced users.

Although a smartphone is a computer (and a pretty powerful one while we are at it), I see it as a communication device. It's main purpose for me is to chat and talk with other people, so I want the modem working as much as it can, or I could miss a call from my granma. Even though I can watch videos (and you could say broadcasting/streaming is a form of communication, just a simplex one) or browse the Web[0], I identify a smartphone as a communication device. That's why I miss hardware keyboards a lot!

In contrast, I see a computer as a general purpose machine. Sure, I don't turn off the WiFi of my laptop, or the router/AP from my house, but those are means to many ends. When I want to check mails on my computer, I launch Thunderbird, and when I want instant mesaaging, I use whatever program/WebApp I need.

[0] As I am now doing, writing a comment in HN is a PITA in a smartphone.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#285

Post by shadowofneptune »

thekingofrome wrote: post #263
Maarten88 wrote: post #85

Long ago Microsoft had MSN Messenger, which was one of the leading messaging apps. It worked well, and many 'normal' users were using it. Then Microsoft dissolved the team behind it and screwed up the product so bad with bloatware and ads that everyone moved to WhatsApp (except in the US where people went back to texting). Then Microsoft came out with Communicator, renamed it to Lync, which was a corporate messenger/…

TIL people in the US use SMS

Why don't people use it elsewhere? I know that WhatsApp is dominant, but why?

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#286

Post by lancebeet »

cyberge99 wrote: post #200
jagged-chisel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest that Teams only gets used because it’s included in the enormous license that companies buy for Exchange and/or Office and the most popular alternative has its own fees. Large companies don’t want to fork over another licensing fee in the tens of thousands of dollars for Slack when they’re getting Teams “free.”

I think Teams also offers more capabilities to Enterprise users. I’ve been on a few teams calls with people on the call that are not visible in the attendee list.

I have also experienced this but I'm quite sure that it was a bug in my cases. Is this actually a service they offer?

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#287

Post by kqr »

Maursault wrote: post #213
agumonkey wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to understand why facebook got so much wind.

Facebook is vanity. It is really all about ego. People love to stroke their ego. It is hilarious to me how many will defend pride and how many somehow confuse pride with virtue, when the opposite of pride, humility, is the virtue. What made Facebook popular is the same thing that makes any vice popular, such as gambling or drinking, because pride is a vice, also known as an indulgence , and pride, ego, and vanity are…

Oh, that's not what got Facebook big. You can stroke your ego in emails or blogs or on forums.

What made Facebook great was that it encouraged users to share personal information (including pictures and bio items) and then made it easy for everyone to anonymously take part of this information.

You could look at pictures of your crush in cute outfits or co-workers in embarrassing situations. You could read about the layoff your ex' new partner had to endure. You could see where the cool kids had their coffee. All of this at any time of day, and nobody but you would know that you knew.

It's the ultimate low-key stalking tool and it was designed this way from the start, because early on they understood that's what people want.

I don't remember the exact quote but I do know one of the early decisions was that photos ought to be open by default and you shouldn't be able to tell who has looked at them -- in contrast to many other social networks at the time.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#288

Post by [deleted] »

Kostic wrote: post #243
jknoepfler wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communications software needs to run when and only when I want it to run. Who in the heck are you to tell me when to run an application on a device I own?

Do you also start/stop the modem on your phone whenever you need it? For the majority of people it makes sense to have a comms app always running as they come to expect that from the smartphones. Granted, there should be an easy way to configure this behavior for advanced users.

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#289

Post by seesaw »

prpl wrote: post #214
drewcoo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had several different non-interoperable message apps, including two named "Messenger." Those golden days didn't look so shiny when we were there. Luckily, there was Pidgin/Adium, so we could have one app to talk all the protocols.

Trillian before that

and ICQ long before that …

Re: Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

#290

Post by pdntspa »

coredog64 wrote: post #210
mBVth4DiupvBPY4 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with two non-interoperable message apps named Messenger? There was MSN Messenger/.NET Messenger/Windows Messenger/Windows Live Messenger, but those were interoperable (they were the same thing, just updates). They also managed to wrangle compatibility with Yahoo Messenger (although by then no one I knew still used Yahoo), and apparently Facebook Messenger, and then did a crappy m…

NT had a built in messenger service that operated on named pipes. It was one of those services you disabled as soon as you could.

I got into so much trouble as a kid for abusing that...
Post reply on HN