[flopsamjetsam]

> But I don't think they will be switching away from Teams as quickly.

I'm interested to know why Teams is so sticky for the team. Are there not good replacements available? I've used it a little, but am by no means a power user.

[close04]

On top of what sibling comment says, Teams benefits from other network effects. If all your partners use Teams and the federation is a enabled, next time you consider a replacement that can do all of this, the bar will be that much higher to find a suitable alternative.

If an inter-operable protocols were enforced by some regulation it would alleviate the situation a bit.

[trinsic2]

It's buggy as hell. That's one thing. But they rolled teams out with office anti-competitively to lock orgs in and on that premise it should be abandoned. Market saturation by a company that is contributing to an authoritarian government by way of anti-competition needs to be black listed everywhere.

[wiredpancake]

Because 'Teams' isn't just a simple meeting application. It's very feature rich. If you ever have to deal with the admin.teams.microsoft portal you'll know how many options and toggles it has.

Alongside this many businesses deploy 'Teams Supported' or 'Teams Enabled' devices into meeting and conference rooms. Yealink is a popular brand, they don't have baked in support for LibreMeet or whatever meeting products exist.