Skip to content

'We're done with Teams': German state hits uninstall on Microsoft

Technology
94 64 3
  • You’re way off here. Microsoft are the industry leaders in this space because they’re so far ahead of everyone else because they focus on this stuff. They’re far from lazy, they’re the opposite in fact. As someone who manages the whole MS suite from entra to dev ops all the way to managed instance dbs and defender and everything in between daily, their integration across everything and their pace of updates is insane.

    What products specifically are you calling “outdated junk” and why?

    Teams is just a copy of old functionality. It doesn't offer anything new. Especially considering their funds and reach. Yet it just promotes the old document / paper world. I'm sure that is intentional. As they need to keep office going. The world should have moved on from documents by now.

  • Teams is just a copy of old functionality. It doesn't offer anything new. Especially considering their funds and reach. Yet it just promotes the old document / paper world. I'm sure that is intentional. As they need to keep office going. The world should have moved on from documents by now.

    What on earth are you talking about by “promotes the old document/paper world”?

  • What on earth are you talking about by “promotes the old document/paper world”?

    Today, when people deal with information digitally, we should be in control in the way we need it. Individual pieces of information should be easy to send, edit, automate, consume and share, without IT getting in the way. Sadly the old files, silos, incompatibility, and systems designed for printing paper documents is still dominant. MS need that. To keep their dominance from the days when they grew powerful and got caught abusing their their monopoly position.
    We need to move past this mess as soon as we can.

  • Today, when people deal with information digitally, we should be in control in the way we need it. Individual pieces of information should be easy to send, edit, automate, consume and share, without IT getting in the way. Sadly the old files, silos, incompatibility, and systems designed for printing paper documents is still dominant. MS need that. To keep their dominance from the days when they grew powerful and got caught abusing their their monopoly position.
    We need to move past this mess as soon as we can.

    You wrote all of that without actually saying anything.

    How does any of….. that….. apply to this situation? Microsoft are one of the biggest pushers of “all digital” there is.

  • You wrote all of that without actually saying anything.

    How does any of….. that….. apply to this situation? Microsoft are one of the biggest pushers of “all digital” there is.

    Their priority is sustaining profit. Which needs them to keep the status quo, not innovate. Teams is not innovation.
    If you are satisfied with what we have today, the next generation of digital information will really surprise you. Yet it would have been available 30 years ago if not for big business monopolies and lack of imagination among techies.

  • Their priority is sustaining profit. Which needs them to keep the status quo, not innovate. Teams is not innovation.
    If you are satisfied with what we have today, the next generation of digital information will really surprise you. Yet it would have been available 30 years ago if not for big business monopolies and lack of imagination among techies.

    Again - you’re writing a lot but saying nothing.

    What exactly are you talking about? Give specifics. What exactly are Microsoft “holding back”? How are they only keeping the status quo by having the most integrated all-in-one ecosystem on the market?

    I’m not sure why you expect teams to be innovative in the first place?

  • Again - you’re writing a lot but saying nothing.

    What exactly are you talking about? Give specifics. What exactly are Microsoft “holding back”? How are they only keeping the status quo by having the most integrated all-in-one ecosystem on the market?

    I’m not sure why you expect teams to be innovative in the first place?

    Surely you want to have good digital communication? And surely you want Teams to help people communicate really well?
    But it sounds like you are satisfied with Teams. It appears you have low expectations of communication.
    You've read the problems people have posted here. Such as when working with multiple companies different teams. So as a starter, a choice of teams clients is missing. Next, teams is not an open standard. To allow connection with other non Teams networks. Next, Teams attempts to integrate your information. But only allows files pictures and text. Information is so much more. It could be a date, an invite, an invoice, a question, a holiday, an insurance.
    If it helps, understand that non IT people want to manage this information in a direct, non IT, non text way. MS products rank very low in this regard.
    If all you can imagine is what MS has, then maybe you might understand when it's put in front of you.

  • Surely you want to have good digital communication? And surely you want Teams to help people communicate really well?
    But it sounds like you are satisfied with Teams. It appears you have low expectations of communication.
    You've read the problems people have posted here. Such as when working with multiple companies different teams. So as a starter, a choice of teams clients is missing. Next, teams is not an open standard. To allow connection with other non Teams networks. Next, Teams attempts to integrate your information. But only allows files pictures and text. Information is so much more. It could be a date, an invite, an invoice, a question, a holiday, an insurance.
    If it helps, understand that non IT people want to manage this information in a direct, non IT, non text way. MS products rank very low in this regard.
    If all you can imagine is what MS has, then maybe you might understand when it's put in front of you.

    You’re still not giving specifics or making any sense.

    “Information could be a holiday, an insurance”

    What on earth are you talking about?

  • You’re still not giving specifics or making any sense.

    “Information could be a holiday, an insurance”

    What on earth are you talking about?

    Those are the sort of pieces of information people actually have, and need to manage digitally. There will be ways to do this, where you see your information. Not files, or other IT mechanisms. You can create, sort and share them directly. They will have security, and ways to automate processes. You won't need 10 different applications to do this, or 6 incompatible online silos, or 4 different folder structures to organise it. Just one. Much less to learn, as you use one thing every time. And all using 90's tech.

  • Those are the sort of pieces of information people actually have, and need to manage digitally. There will be ways to do this, where you see your information. Not files, or other IT mechanisms. You can create, sort and share them directly. They will have security, and ways to automate processes. You won't need 10 different applications to do this, or 6 incompatible online silos, or 4 different folder structures to organise it. Just one. Much less to learn, as you use one thing every time. And all using 90's tech.

    You’re a master of stringing a very large number of words together without actually saying anything of any meaning.

    You still haven’t given a single specific example of what you’re talking about and how Microsoft’s products don’t allow it.

  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 131 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    P
    This is a tough one for me: I'm opposed to femicide, but I only wish the absolute worst on influencers.
  • 107 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    swelter_spark@reddthat.comS
    The amount of suffering it's already caused will never be worth it.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 472 Stimmen
    99 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    J
    Copyright law is messy. Thank you for the elaboration.
  • Apple’s Smart Glasses Expected to Hit the Market by Late Next Year!

    Technology technology
    14
    6 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    L
    great, another worthless tech product that no one asked for. I can hardly wait.
  • 117 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    S
    Common Noyb W
  • 14 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    D
    "Extra Verification steps" I know how large social media companies operate. This is all about increasing the value of Reddit users to advertisers. The goal is to have a more accurate user database to sell them. Zuckerberg literally brags to corporations about how good their data is on users: https://www.facebook.com/business/ads/performance-marketing Here, Zuckerberg tells corporations that Instagram can easily manipulate users into purchasing shit: https://www.facebook.com/business/instagram/instagram-reels Always be wary of anything available for free. There are some quality exceptions (CBC, VLC, The Guardian, Linux, PBS, Wikipedia, Lemmy, ProPublica) but, by and large, "free" means they don't care about you. You are just a commodity that they sell. Facebook, Google, X, Reddit, Instagram... Their goal is keep people hooked to their smartphone by giving them regular small dopamine hits (likes, upvotes) followed by a small breaks with outrageous content/emotional content. Keep them hooked, gather their data, and sell them ads. The people who know that best are former top executives : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/addictive-technology.html https://www.today.com/parents/teens/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-rcna15256