Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why is Microsoft Teams still so bad?

news.ycombinator.com

331–340 of 814 posts

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

#331
post #172

Simple answer: It is a badly coded mess of spaghetti code, written with an ancient framework (AngularJS, currently running version 1.5.15), then ported to different platforms with Electron. Have a look at the source code in your browser, it is not obfuscated in any way. It is a single file of almost 17MB (!) of minified JavaScript, and I'm surprised the browser doesn't outright crash and actually manages to parse thi…

That explains a lot of it.

AngularJS's dirty checking was neat but pretty inefficient, and since you didn't have to think much about implications of changes of state it was easy to write slow apps in angularjs.

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

#332
It's interesting how the back-end part is "funny" as well. If you a Teams to Teams call, your internal call flow ends up being exposed to the calling party [1] - and that's not what you expect out of an office PBX. This happens only if both parties are on a Teams client, though.

[1] https://twitter.com/lenz/status/1571921532783587329

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

#333

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/…

What's hilarious and sad is that MSN Messenger had a lot of features back in the early '00s that major players like WhatsApp and Telegram now only implement through gritted teeth, one every year if you're lucky. Things like custom emojis, audio messages, sending a drawing, avatars you could see, choosing your display name, exportable conversation history, you even had games! Nowadays people cheer for the bare minimum…

Right but WhatsApp solved a very different problem in the beginning - how do I send a message to someone who isn't online right now (or has a flaky connection).

THAT was what was needed for mobile devices. I remember trying to use MSN messenger when I was on WAP and it sucked. And then I remember Skype on iPhone sucked for messages too. SMS also wasn't great if you were remotely international and had friends and family not in the same country as you.

It took two whole years for Skype to rearchitect away from peer to peer (understandably so).

To this day, when you want guaranteed delivery, in order and without duplicates WhatsApp runs circles around its competitors.

Compare that with Slack which both on desktop and mobile regularly has weird issues with successfully delivering a message.

Ultimately avatars are nice to have and later on top of a reliable messaging service but otherwise I'd take boring old text over flaky rich messaging every day of the week.

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

#334
post #131

Teams is buggy, clunky, and unreliable, though fairly feature rich. I find things like Google stuff/Slack/Discord to be somewhat more reliable and less unpleasant to use (even if Discord is another clunky Electron app.) But few things can compare to Zoom's astonishingly cavalier attitude toward security and privacy, and Zoom seems unavoidable in many contexts.

I will say at least their security game has been stepping up. They've really curtailed what information is available through their apis by default. Still not...great. But at least trending in the right direction. On the other hand, the privacy situation... jesus I've never seen more analytics and cookies in my life than when I inspect my profile page on zoom.us.

> They've really curtailed what information is available through their apis by default.

Maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32901768

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

#336

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/…

> Then they bought Skype and it went downhill from there. I don't know what happened, but they took a lot of time integrating technologies from Skype (peer-to-peer) with their own tech (which was more telecom/server based)

I was at Skype at the time, working on this very migration, so maybe I can shed some light on what happened.

There were a number of failures (on Microsoft part mainly) that made the whole thing collapse:

- The original Skype developers were used to program in C++ with on-premise Linux servers. When the migration plan came in, the tech stack switched to C# on Azure. Most developers were not really keen or experienced working with C# and Windows. Azure was very much beta at the time, I remember the philosophy was "eat your own dog food" which created an insane amount of frustration working with sub-par tooling, little to no documentation, plenty of bugs on Azure. There is also a mentality/philosophy shift of working with C#/Windows coming from C++/Linux which was not great for team morale.

- Support for group chat was paramount, which meant there was a need of transition from peer to peer to client server.

- The original Lync team was very much annoyed with the rebranding and migration plan and was not really keen on helping Skype developers. I remember us receiving a "dump" of the Lync VCS as tech reference, in the form of a big fat multi GB archive. There were tons of binaries, even videos in there... Lot of fun...

- MS/Lync used a _huge_ amount of proprietary SIP extensions to have Lync work.

- The migration to the cloud and client-server model was accompanied by a huge migration to a brand new microservices in C# project. It meant recoding everything in a new language, a new platform, a new protocol, dealing with hundreds of half baked microservices in a half baked cloud platform. It was slow, buggy, and an architect astronaut fest.

- Overall 99% of the original Skype calling team resigned and joined Twilio.

- Pretty much every manager from MS that I have seen at Skype stayed no more than a year then rotated to a new role, at one point we had 4 changes of management in 2 years.

- Every single interaction with Microsoft management was surreal. Pardon my language, but they were not technical at all, unable to understand the most basic architecture proposals, bullshitting tech talk 9 words out of 10,and overall they were living in an other planet in terms of market share and branding. You could definitely tell that they were talking "product" and "objectives" for Skype, but never used it, understand it's competition, challenges, etc. Pure bozos.

In the end I think Microsoft still extracted some value from Skype, mainly:

- Skype had good PSTN contracts worth a lot of value. The matching engine to select the cheaper one dynamically had value too, and historical data.

- The brand itself had value for customers.

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

#337

Microsoft's entire business model is holding corporate IT hostage. All their apps suck, except maybe VS Code. There's no reason to choose the Microsoft stack over Google Workplace or Zoho except, well, inertia. And there's a lot of that...

BUT... it's so easy for corporate IT dept to buy into. Each different vendor is a different nightmare - but with MS you have only one. And they have it all. And it's maybe not best in class, but good enough. You can see why they are so successful.

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

#338

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/…

It's funny, I have used Communicator/Lync and I remember everyone hated it, including the CEO which was a MS fan, which was the reason why we started using it in the first place. I remember it not being even able to sync presence status properly. We switched quickly to Hipchat, which was not great, but felt like an improvement at the time ^^

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

#339
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forums weren't replaced by discord. Forums were replaced by Reddit. Although you post still stands, I think you're very wrong in thinking about the reasoning why people use one or another platform. Let's think about discord for a minute, why is everyone using it? And what are they using it for? I think the answers here are rather simple, people have a need for communication with peers; this communication usually take…

> Forums weren't replaced by discord. Forums were replaced by Reddit. Although you post still stands, I think you're very wrong in thinking about the reasoning why people use one or another platform. There may be some contexts where that's true, but overwhelmingly I've seen Discord replacing forums, particularly for small, closed groups. Wheereas I've never so much as heard of any group adopting a private subreddit!…

For gaming it makes sense, as it replaces Mumble/TeamSpeak/etc with smoother UI & UX.
Post reply on HN