91–100 of 808 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, would be unfair towards all the other http tools that arent curl if you bundle it
No one is getting a competitive advantage by bundling curl, which is the entire point of this argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, would be unfair towards all the other http tools that arent curl if you bundle it
No one is getting a competitive advantage by bundling curl, which is the entire point of this argument.
Kidding aside, where exactly does it end? How do you consider when you’ve hit “too much” and how many pieces must be split out when you do? Should every product in the Office suite be offered only individually?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t know what’s hard to understand there? Microsoft didn’t have a chat product (worth anything, Skype was a mountain of crap). Slack comes along and builds a great product, Microsoft goes “oh, the office suite now includes teams!” So everyone gets it “for free” if they have the office suite, murdering slack in the market. And of cause everyone will have to pay for Teams as the price of the office package rises to I…
So the legal line is that once a company is successful in bundling and selling products the bundle is locked and can never be added to? That seems unreasonable to me, and I generally am pretty hard on monopolistic issues. Edit: wouldn't this mean that Apple could never have added a preinstalled app to the iPhone after the phones became successful?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Meet is bundled with Android by Google, it's not there if you use LineageOS. It's probably an individual choice by phone makers (although maybe not a completely free choice). I do agree it shouldn't be bundled of course. But even Chrome isn't bundled for example, so I don't think Google is actually pushing many apps.
It's bundled with all the other Google apps - eg. The play store, docs, search etc. OEM's have to ship them all or none of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You suggest that US government would go to war against its main allies to protect business interests of a software company?
War? The EU didn't start a war when the US blew up nordstream 2. In fact they spent a lot of time nervously pointing at everyone except the US (who said they would blow it up). It's a totally abusive and subservient relationship. But then again the US doesn't allow the EU to have software companies, so they might not care that the data that would go to Teams is being hovered by a different US company instead.
...pardon?
It's wild to me that Teams is so fucking horrible that many businesses who effectively get it for free as part of other dealings still choose to pay for Slack.
Sadly I know of many, many more companies where the offer is indeed too good to refuse, much to the disappointment of their workforce.
I was helping out at a place where two employees needed Word and Excel licenses, and somehow they got a massive, free Teams license out of it.
I thought this was going to be about bundling Teams in O365 and other biz deals. It's wild to me that Teams is so fucking horrible that many businesses who effectively get it for free as part of other dealings still choose to pay for Slack. Sadly I know of many, many more companies where the offer is indeed too good to refuse, much to the disappointment of their workforce. I was helping out at a place where two emplo…
It's free per user, but it's quite expensive if you start adding meeting rooms, voip, webinar, ...
Zoom+slack are literally cheaper in total, but the startup cost is very visible and teams startup cost is 0.
Oh well. I guess it's time for Microsoft to discontinue Teams, destroy any related IP, purge any copies from GitHub/developer workstations/backups, forcibly uninstall it from end-user machines, update Windows to forcibly delete any copies installed in the future, and never, ever, ever under any circumstances try to compete in the chat/video conferencing market ever again. The world will survive, if just barely.