This video omits some important details from the viewers. The first one is that Microsoft already had a videoconferencing software targeted at business users, called Lync, and later renamed Skype for Business. Secondly, teams was free for most Office 365 users for a very long time, but it was mostly seen as a (bad) Slack alternative. In 2019 this changed as Microsoft started to finally invest more resources in the product and actually listen to what it’s business users needed.
I was just thinking the same time. Teams grew "rapidly" because businesses locked into the Microsoft ecosystem had no choice. If your phone system ("unified communication") was originally based on Lync, then you went to Skype for Business, then to Teams, rather than ripping out your expensive investment in shit to do things the Microsoft way. My former employer did that. It was a horrible idea to replace the industry standard SIP systems. (FreePBX and Snom, and I had Cisco and Aastra phones around, even a few old Nortel phones.)
@GustavoSantos88 You're right about that. Plus, before Lync, there was OCO, Office Communicator Online. I know because I used to provide Tech Support for all of these. Plus Skype for Business never targeted the Skype crowd. MS took the features from Lync and built them into the Skype infrastructure to make SfB. SfB was HUGELY popular as a business tool. You always needed a subscription or to run it from your own server, so it was never geared towards consumers. It did integrate with Skype contacts and you could include a Skype participant in a meeting, but a free Skype user could not use that account to run Skype for Business. Then, they tried to buy Slack, was unsuccessful, and built Teams. Teams took all of the tools from the previous iterations of OCO, Lync, and SfB but added even more features and functionality and even integrates with SharePoint and the Microsoft 365 ecosystem.
Hostile takeovers is Microsofts entire business model since day 1. MS has never innovated anything, it simply steals IP with hostile takeovers. It uses a monopoly position to destroy the competition. It buys IP and companies that could compete with them, and then intentionally destroys it. The whole thing is orchestrated in the media and marketing and the ignorant public falls for it over and over. Adolf H. himself could never have dreamed of becoming the monster Bill Gates is today. This is not hyperbole, it is fact. Microsoft and Bill Gates has created more global inequality, famine, poverty, death, wars, then any other single corporation, including overthrowing the U.S. Constitution with legislation like 'Citizens United'. Microsoft IS the soft mask of the U.S. military empire. But hey, go ahead and buy your xbox and keep drinking the media kool-aid bro.
The power of Teams is not just it's video conference and chat features, but it's integration with the entire O365 suite. If you set up your Teams channels properly with all the features that they offer, you can turn it into a state-of-the-art knowledge database. People have no idea how powerful and secure Teams is compared to Skype lol
The only gripe i have with Teams meeting is that you can't annotate like zoom. I am surprised they didn't integrate this feature 😮💨. Not being able to annotate is frustrating.
Are we using the same teams app? That thing is so unstable, buggy and a ram hog on linux, android and mac (haven't had to use it on windows) Slack feels infinitely better, (sure discord is the near perfect one)
@@aravindpallippara1577 I've had the exact opposite experience on my end. Nothing has been as stable and reliable as Teams in the past two years I've been using it. Granted, this is a corporate setting where the company's IT team administers it, but I can honestly say I'd never go back to Xoom, Google Meet, etc.
My problem with your hypothesis is that Microsoft could have made Teams without ever buying Skype. They didn’t use any Skype code to make Teams. “Skype for Business” was just a rebranding of Microsoft Linq, which was a completely separate business voip product that already existed before they bought Skype. Linq -> Skype for Business -> Teams had absolutely nothing to do with their 8 billion Skype purchase except that after they bought it they slapped the name “Skype for Business” on Linq, temporarily, and then changed its name to Teams. Absolutely nothing of what Microsoft paid 8 billion for exists in Teams. It was always a completely separate product line.
What Microsoft took from Skype to produce Teams was the network interactions and design. You can still see skypes original Peer to Peer networking in place with Teams. Unlike what was stated in the video, it was actually MORE stable then using servers. The real reason Microsoft switched to using servers and allowed System admins to disable Peer to Peer is that it was a nightmare to administer and was considered a security risk. (They could never sell it to government agencies if they left Peer to Peer pairing on.)
Well, it was the Skype team who made Teams, not the Lync team, after Slack refuse to sell to MSFT, Bill Gates advice the Skype team to make Teams, so in the end the price was worth it...And it was bought to protect MSFT, which it did.
@@Kingyoshi999 Correct. They never targeted Skype consumers with Teams. In my opinion, they bought it to get the networking infrastructure and to have another ad platform by way of the free Skype users.
The peer to peer aspect was the biggest problem with Skype. It really didn't work with multiple devices like a desktop and smartphone. The rise of phones and tablets meant that Microsoft had to spend years reinventing the wheel, while all the competitors could architect their apps to be account based, not device based, from the ground up. That's why Skype fell behind so hard in UI and features.
The decline in UI and features (and lost chats and late notifications) was the reason I left. Never knew why it got worse with each update. Thanks for sharing.
Did you ever use Skype? There were accounts that worked on multiple devices. It's dirt simple to do - most SIP engines already support this. (I don't call your cellphone app, or desktop app, I call _you_ ) That was the entire point of Skype for Business: Unified Communication. If I call you, _everything_ logged in as you rings. (it's rather annoying, actually, when everything is on the same desk.)
@jfbeam Oh you know what, you may be right. It's been a month since I've watched it now, but the video talked about the history of Skype being sold to eBay and then Microsoft. That was using the old peer-to-peer protocol that was originally based on code from Kazaa. That thing sucked with multiple devices until Microsoft fully moved to their server side backend to a modernized architecture 2017. But the video title mentions skype for business, which was just Microsoft Lync. It was a completely different product that just changed its branding to "Skype for Business" in 2015. That product was much better for multiple devices. I wonder if the video author knows that... calling "Skype Business Microsoft's Best Acquisition" is not factually accurate. Consumer-facing Skype was the acquisition, Microsoft Lync rebranded to Skype business was more in-house from what I understand. Edit: I just looked it up, it went Live Communication Server -> Office Communication Server -> Lync Server -> Skype for Business server -> on-premise server retired for Microsoft Teams using SharePoint Online Service and Azure Active Directory.
Skype and Teams have one massive advantage to Zoom: You don't have to do "meetings", you can call people individually like with FaceTime/Whatsapp as well.
I still use Skype for the simple fact that it is the only real time translation voice call. Seems a lot of people don't know about it but you can call someone and speak to them in real time in a different language. The voice is robotic, it isn't great and gets some stuff wrong, but I can't really find anything else like it, especially for free.
One thing I don't understand is how the aquisition actually helped Microsoft. It seems like Teams created their own userbase. So if it's not the users that made the aquisition worth it, then what is it? It's not the technology, cause they scrapped that too when transitioning from p2p to server
@@chillie_dude I don't think so. Teams charges about $4 - $12 per month per user. So if they have about 100million paying users out of about 300 million that they curretly have, then teams will make that $8 billion in less than 2 years. Thatya big win for Microsoft. They're going to make it at the end of the day.
@@irokpe6977 They also bundle teams with Office 365, so are all those companies using Teams actually paying that amount specifically for Teams? I think more likely, the biggest win is vendor lock-in, as they mentioned in the video. Companies are going to be stuck in Teams for years just like some are still trying to cling to Internet Explorer long past its original expiration date. They're locked into Teams, so they'll keep paying for Office 365. They're also locked into other Office 365 apps, so they might as well keep using Teams.
There was a lot of experience and ideas that translated well from Skype to Teams, main point being that Microsoft now can monetize better all Skype's features in Office365 as enterprise/b2b addons (Teams, telephony, etc).
I don't think they really shut down Skype business. They just converted it to Teams. Skype business was just a rebranded MS communicator then Lync. Teams was just an overhauled version of Skype for Business and initially had lacking features from Skype in its first release, and added features since.
@@LelandVelasco Correct. Teams is a new product and not an upgrade to Skype for Business. Some ideas were borrowed into Teams and some level of interoperability with SfB was added.
Skype for Business was not part of the Skype acquisition. After Microsoft acquired Skype, they rebranded Microsoft Lync as Skype, since Lync was relatively unknown as a brand. The executable is still called Lync.exe. This product, their legacy Lync product, is what they shut down. It was not related to the Skype acquisition in any way, beyond the name. The video kind of falls apart from there.
"Launch of Skype for Business in 2015"??? Bro, what about Skype for Business 2013? Lync 2010? Not to mention its predecessor, Office Communicator 2007... More research would have been better around this topic.
To be honest, I never hated Skype at all. In fact, it has carried me through my childhood. Everyone used it, especially in the early to mid 2010s. It was just a nice time but nowadays, Discord has replaced it entirely for me as it has all the features I always liked about Skype.
Everyone at my company is slamming our employer for attempting to switch to skype. We were using slack for years. needless to say teams and skype is gone. and slack is here to stay
lol, who is your employer, a small business? Slack has chat channels. Pretty much it. Teams has business intelligence integration, cloud services for tech-enabled companies, machine learning (AI) availability, etc. Slack is a software, whereas Microsoft Teams is an entire, holistic ecosystem. And everyone at your company is essentially asking for comfort over innovation, thus endangering the future vision of the company.
@@themore-you-know the UI is clunky and slow. Alerts are hit or miss. So many bug issues like when one of my clients called it would default to looking at an unread message from 2 days ago so i have to go back. Maybe its great for some but its a nightmare when trying to just communicate with different departments. We tried to use it for a few weeks and the productivity lost is just not worth it for now. Msft is supposed to be looking into our issues and releasing a better version for us to try. I guess we will see
I use Webex, Teams and Zoom daily and still find Webex to be better in most regards. You seemed to dismiss it quickly but I didn't hear the reason. Can you clarify?
Skype was a solid service. Microsoft killed it with required Microsoft integration (that didn't migrate users correctly) and a completely botched redesign that made the core functionality unusable
I used to use Skype on my desktop all the time back in 2008-2010 but then had no reason with a smart phone anymore. I honestly didn't know what"Zoom"was until the pandemic.
Keep in mind, and as you already pointed out, you acquire a firm/technology so that your competitor do not acquire it and they do not get an opportunity to shorten the development time.
Teams is awful for anything beyond basic Meetings. If you need to stream larger complex events (think thousands of people watching, fancy affects etc.) Its awful. Additionally, it has lower reliability then Cisco and Polycom products. (Even lower then Zoom...) The only reason it was able to do so well is because it comes packaged with Microsoft's other products and Microsoft originally forcefully installed Teams on everyone's computers even if you did not want it.
Not sure I agree. Reliability of Teams (at least for my org of 800 or so users) has been rock solid and has never had issues and we have a quarterly meeting through Teams with every employee via live event and it has never failed. Ignite a few months ago used Teams and that must have been a few thousands at least. While the default effects in teams are certainly lacking if you know what you are doing you are able to use a virtual camera and use software such as stream labs or OBS to create a multitude of effects. Having said that other than the blur feature I don't think anyone (especially in a business environment) cares about effects such as this. Lastly Teams is more than just a meeting/conferencing tool it is also a sharepoint tool which allows the integration to sites which for an end user is incredibly useful and makes it super easy to sync sites. Can't disagree with that second paragraph though MS really need to stop that crap.
@@seangraylin 800 users is not bad. The average size of smaller meetings I run is 600-900. The challenge with smaller events is the many bugs that exist and the fact that Microsoft does not provide any feedback or dates on when or if bugfixes will come out. Most of the events I am referring to are those that have between 20-80,000 attendees and are large productions. I use vMix to produce these. (Similar to OBS.) ( am usually running about 5-6 computers at the same time, with switches and mixers to produce these events myself. Teams Live Events simply cannot compete with other platforms to meet this size of audience. and remain bug-free. I could go on, as there are many more serious problems, but I don't want to write another wall of text.
My office was using Skype for communications when I had joined them in 2019. By April 2020 I was told that we would need to transition to MS Teams and that Skype for business was going away. We switched to Teams and its one of the best tools that we use at work. It's very convenient and easy to use. I have tried Zoom but I would prefer to use Teams every chance I get. Cisco's webex is also nice a product for large scale meetings though. Teams utterly fails in that dept. Webex in 2022 is way better than what it was before. Before 2022 it was really crap. I would prefer Skype for business over Webex earlier.
Teams is so popular and used by so many employers because it comes free with Office 365. Personally, I prefer using Zoom over Teams at my job because I can connect to a Zoom meeting without using my work PC.
My biggest issue with Skype was how when you'd start a call, its quality would be fantastic, but as it progressed the quality would drop and drop with no other way of fixing it but to restart the call entirely, which was a pain for group chats.
Skype had reliability issues. The user interface was really heavy on PC and Android devices. However, now they have a light version of Skype also which is far better and stable. I still have Skype installed on my phone. I don't use it really anymore but it is more for nostalgic reasons.
These companies are SOOO rich, they purchase companies who have a product better than their own just to kill it. They don't care about "losing" billions. The company is saying "see our competitors always fail" Disney is doing the same thing with Pixar.
We were early users of Skype and we were so impressed with how the Skype services saved us hundred of dollars of overseas phone bill every month when our overseas sales people wee calling their clients all over the world. For those with Skype accounts on both ends, the Skype call was even free. Charges only applied when you called a physical phone number.
Skype was a great program *before* Microsoft bought it. They made the UI a cluttered mess, riddled the program with ads in attempt to get more money from its many users and i don't see how moving away from P2P was a good choice. Microsoft Teams is a glorified chat app with a bad UI. Slack is doing a much better job.
I use MS Teams everyday at work and I hate it. It's slow, it's sluggish, UI isn't that good and regularly have issues such as delayed messages, failing to connect, etc. It also has this annoyingly stupid message that whenever you're sending an attachment, it treats it like some kind of file management that it warms you if the same tile was already sent. This happens everytime
Not to mention companies who lag behind on hardware updates. Our computers were crashing non-stop with MS Teams while they worked.. "okay" with Skype. I can't imagine Skype being worse in performance. Maybe if you're comparing on modern hardware but companies with outdated hardware suffered with MS Teams.
I’m not sure if most unis have but we have switched to teams as well, used to use it all the time during the pandemic but now it’s mostly pre-recorded lectures that we access through it
I heard somewhere that microsoft didn’t buy skype for the sake of buying skype but instead for the technology that skype revolutionised and that they earned a lot of money on licensing that tech to companies like zoom
I honestly came here thinking the reason you were going to say its their best acq is because under the control of another company or even just as it was, they would've kept innovating to keep it at the top. Whereas, with Microsoft controlling it, they were able to make it terrible and depreciate it while building out their own internal competitor. Basically, I think it was an anti-competition move. I don't see anyone else mirroring this same sentiment, so maybe I'm alone in this thought pattern.
There are two major mistakes here: 1) Microsoft has not ditched consumer markets (B2B has always been the larger source of revenue) 2) the video mixes Skype and Skype for Business (formerly know as Lync). These were two separate services for different customer groups. Teams is the successor of the latter.
But Skype for Business have nothing to do with Skype. It was previously called Lync and was just renamed some time after the acquisition. And was really bad, so no wonder it was shut down.
Wow, I still remember the android app skype had in the early 2010s. It was by far the worst major app I've ever used. It would hang, slow everything down while running in the background, and didn't work so well in general. Maybe it was the peer-to-peer aspect of the app that didn't translate well to mobile. But it was barely usable.
ive recently reinstalled skype as meta has been bullshitting around and suspended me for 3 days for no feason, its been nostalgic to see some conversations i had like 13yrs ago with friends still as a teen, im keeping it active now if anyone comes back online or meta decides to fuck around again its a great alternative
My company still uses Skype for some reason and man it sucks so much. Calls get triggered after 30 seconds of pressing the button, voice messages sometime omit the first few seconds and its very slow.
There are a few things missing here. For one, Teams uses the re-written "cloud based" Skype media infrastructure. All the work MS did to move Skype away from peer-to-peer is still being used in Teams. All the learnings from that migration are applied. Also, Skype calling is mentioned but it's not highlighted nearly enough. The acquisition of Skype made MS a Telco of sorts. Fast forward to Teams calling and Microsoft is top of the Gartner quadrant for UC as a Service. This wouldn't have happened without the Skype acquisition.
I never gave Skye a chance due to a little hype aversion and a lack of any real need for it. By the time I did have a need for teleconferencing, the backlash to Skype had reached the same pitch as the hype, and there were plenty of alternatives. I've tried all the alternatives and can't say that dislike any of them. I do like compartmentalization between my work (Teams), my school (Zoom) and my gaming (Discord), and never want for them to meet on one platform.
I’m working with about 100 companies and every single one of them either uses Teams already or is planning to use it within the next 24 Months. I definitely can see your point.
Teams user growth from 2021 us mainly due to windows 11 having teams as default to every one and making ms account mandatory for windows 11 home. (which majority of oems includes) Yes alot of corporates also uses it but that significant growth is mostly due to windows 11 and not all the 270m users are paid customer.
To be fair we have been ungrateful to Skype, it should never had been in decline, Skype had video call and every cool features long before whatsapp and the others came in. We are ungrateful.
Story as old as tech: company A buys out Company B. Company A shuts down Company B. Company A releases new products using IP (intellectual property, not internet protocol) from buyout of company B.
Teams is amazing and an excellent collabaration tool. Microsoft could have renamed teams for personal use in windows 11. It is odd to tell someone call me on teams, “skype me” was a good branding.
I never hated old technology, rather I becomes sad if something I was using becomes old, unpopular and repressed by new, such: Messenger over Polish Gadu-Gadu, Discord/Teamspeak over Skype, Facebook over Polish Our Class and older MySpace, here only Tumblr is still working old social media website. If other people would stay using old technology, I would also stay, I used Windows Phone 7 and later 8, 8.1 and Mobile 10, and I'm very sad that this system development/maintenece was discontinued :(
I used teams basically for most of my everyday communications with my work, followed by Outlook. I am surprised by how quite is the public and media about Microsoft growing domination over the day-to-day life of people.
This just shows how bad the skype Aquisition was for Microsoft. Skype for Business was a simple rebrand of Lync, a technology Microsoft already had which would go on to form part of the technology stack of teams along with SharePoint (uuhh). Not long after Microsoft acquired Skype, they discarded all of the skype server technology and migrated to the in-house MSN Messenger (later Windows Live Messenger) enabling interoperability between skype accounts and Microsoft accounts (most users ended up with multiple accounts with the same e-mail address). Microsoft later shut down Windows Live Messenger, but the service continues its life under the Skype brand. As mobile connectivity became important, Microsoft struggled to add features such as offline messages, and syncing messages to multiple devices that competing messaging apps already had. You would often lose messages using Skype. Some of this can be attributed to the various thiefdoms within Microsoft made worse by the Skype acquisition. Without Skype it's possible that Windows Live Messenger would have innovated past Skype and still be around as a viable competitor to iMessage and WhatsApp. Despite the failings as a messenger app (Skype is basically unusable), it still had a strong association with cheap voice to the PSTN (Skype out) and video conferencing.
Team is free to use and only cost if you add more features. It is is more a defense rather than offense strategy for Microsoft. Zoom enjoys a brief success however it is doomed to failed in the long term since it is a single product company and lack of synergy. Would you buy a non-apple ear pod if you have an iPhone?
It's a misleading title. Should be "Skype for Business" and not "Skype Business". The phrase "Skype Business" sounds like "Microsoft's business that is running Skype". Skype is still running/working! (January 2023)
Skype for Business and Lync was better. They Moved to Teams for compete with slack. It made more sense as they brought various other products under MS Teams umbrella and derived a different product all together.
They refused to take payments from my credit card, and no one could explain why… customer service didn’t have a phone number, just a chat service. It was like they were allergic to money.
that's the thing. it wasn't a declined payment. my credit card approved it, I could even see it as a temp charge. i called my credit card company that confirmed it. i called skype who had no explanation whatsoever on why they didn't take my money@@sizquirt
You're totally wrong on mobile. MS were initially messed up mobie, but it was ok as the early 2000s was nascent and experimental. What killed MS mobile later, was apps. Not UX. Windows Phone OS and the Nokia h/ware was perfect synergy, but MS couldn't get devs on board. Maybe all this coincided with the Steve Balmer era. By 2009 and iPhone they missed their chance to cement a substantial lead.
The ONLY reason our business opted to use Zoom instead of Teams during the pandemic is because Teams only supported 4 video feeds on a call at the time, where Zoom supported 50+
While it is true that significantly more companies use Teams for INTERNAL meetings, but for external, especially those participating by people from multiple firms, zoom is still the preferred platform
Teams is great after setup, but the setup can be a bitch Zooms is so easy to setup my grandma could do it after a 5 minute explanation and making one poor drawing, but beyond that its lacking
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
This video omits some important details from the viewers. The first one is that Microsoft already had a videoconferencing software targeted at business users, called Lync, and later renamed Skype for Business. Secondly, teams was free for most Office 365 users for a very long time, but it was mostly seen as a (bad) Slack alternative. In 2019 this changed as Microsoft started to finally invest more resources in the product and actually listen to what it’s business users needed.
I was just thinking the same time. Teams grew "rapidly" because businesses locked into the Microsoft ecosystem had no choice. If your phone system ("unified communication") was originally based on Lync, then you went to Skype for Business, then to Teams, rather than ripping out your expensive investment in shit to do things the Microsoft way. My former employer did that. It was a horrible idea to replace the industry standard SIP systems. (FreePBX and Snom, and I had Cisco and Aastra phones around, even a few old Nortel phones.)
@GustavoSantos88 You're right about that. Plus, before Lync, there was OCO, Office Communicator Online. I know because I used to provide Tech Support for all of these. Plus Skype for Business never targeted the Skype crowd. MS took the features from Lync and built them into the Skype infrastructure to make SfB. SfB was HUGELY popular as a business tool. You always needed a subscription or to run it from your own server, so it was never geared towards consumers. It did integrate with Skype contacts and you could include a Skype participant in a meeting, but a free Skype user could not use that account to run Skype for Business. Then, they tried to buy Slack, was unsuccessful, and built Teams. Teams took all of the tools from the previous iterations of OCO, Lync, and SfB but added even more features and functionality and even integrates with SharePoint and the Microsoft 365 ecosystem.
Microsoft has honestly been killing it with acquisitions. They're above and beyond the front runner in so many aspects
Hostile takeovers is Microsofts entire business model since day 1. MS has never innovated anything, it simply steals IP with hostile takeovers. It uses a monopoly position to destroy the competition. It buys IP and companies that could compete with them, and then intentionally destroys it. The whole thing is orchestrated in the media and marketing and the ignorant public falls for it over and over. Adolf H. himself could never have dreamed of becoming the monster Bill Gates is today. This is not hyperbole, it is fact. Microsoft and Bill Gates has created more global inequality, famine, poverty, death, wars, then any other single corporation, including overthrowing the U.S. Constitution with legislation like 'Citizens United'. Microsoft IS the soft mask of the U.S. military empire. But hey, go ahead and buy your xbox and keep drinking the media kool-aid bro.
👍 It isn’t really about the certain service or name… the bigger and broader game is about creating a well integrated solution.
Keep in mind that they are a stakeholder in OpenAI 😅
@@-vis-2492 which made Elon pissed since the initial goal of OpenAI is for the ai development to be independent of Corporations.
Especially with LinkedIn
The power of Teams is not just it's video conference and chat features, but it's integration with the entire O365 suite. If you set up your Teams channels properly with all the features that they offer, you can turn it into a state-of-the-art knowledge database. People have no idea how powerful and secure Teams is compared to Skype lol
The power of skype was that it could Integrated into softphone interfaces....but I see how that might not be as important as office collaboration
The only gripe i have with Teams meeting is that you can't annotate like zoom. I am surprised they didn't integrate this feature 😮💨. Not being able to annotate is frustrating.
Are we using the same teams app?
That thing is so unstable, buggy and a ram hog on linux, android and mac (haven't had to use it on windows)
Slack feels infinitely better, (sure discord is the near perfect one)
@@aravindpallippara1577 I've had the exact opposite experience on my end. Nothing has been as stable and reliable as Teams in the past two years I've been using it. Granted, this is a corporate setting where the company's IT team administers it, but I can honestly say I'd never go back to Xoom, Google Meet, etc.
@@odaneforrester9326 It's just the app itself for me - and I have used it across multiple platforms - it never felt responsive or stable for me
My problem with your hypothesis is that Microsoft could have made Teams without ever buying Skype. They didn’t use any Skype code to make Teams. “Skype for Business” was just a rebranding of Microsoft Linq, which was a completely separate business voip product that already existed before they bought Skype. Linq -> Skype for Business -> Teams had absolutely nothing to do with their 8 billion Skype purchase except that after they bought it they slapped the name “Skype for Business” on Linq, temporarily, and then changed its name to Teams. Absolutely nothing of what Microsoft paid 8 billion for exists in Teams. It was always a completely separate product line.
What Microsoft took from Skype to produce Teams was the network interactions and design.
You can still see skypes original Peer to Peer networking in place with Teams.
Unlike what was stated in the video, it was actually MORE stable then using servers.
The real reason Microsoft switched to using servers and allowed System admins to disable Peer to Peer is that it was a nightmare to administer and was considered a security risk. (They could never sell it to government agencies if they left Peer to Peer pairing on.)
Correction, Lync
Well, it was the Skype team who made Teams, not the Lync team, after Slack refuse to sell to MSFT, Bill Gates advice the Skype team to make Teams, so in the end the price was worth it...And it was bought to protect MSFT, which it did.
@@Kingyoshi999 Correct. They never targeted Skype consumers with Teams. In my opinion, they bought it to get the networking infrastructure and to have another ad platform by way of the free Skype users.
The peer to peer aspect was the biggest problem with Skype. It really didn't work with multiple devices like a desktop and smartphone. The rise of phones and tablets meant that Microsoft had to spend years reinventing the wheel, while all the competitors could architect their apps to be account based, not device based, from the ground up. That's why Skype fell behind so hard in UI and features.
The decline in UI and features (and lost chats and late notifications) was the reason I left. Never knew why it got worse with each update. Thanks for sharing.
Did you ever use Skype? There were accounts that worked on multiple devices. It's dirt simple to do - most SIP engines already support this. (I don't call your cellphone app, or desktop app, I call _you_ ) That was the entire point of Skype for Business: Unified Communication. If I call you, _everything_ logged in as you rings. (it's rather annoying, actually, when everything is on the same desk.)
@jfbeam Oh you know what, you may be right. It's been a month since I've watched it now, but the video talked about the history of Skype being sold to eBay and then Microsoft. That was using the old peer-to-peer protocol that was originally based on code from Kazaa. That thing sucked with multiple devices until Microsoft fully moved to their server side backend to a modernized architecture 2017.
But the video title mentions skype for business, which was just Microsoft Lync. It was a completely different product that just changed its branding to "Skype for Business" in 2015. That product was much better for multiple devices.
I wonder if the video author knows that... calling "Skype Business Microsoft's Best Acquisition" is not factually accurate. Consumer-facing Skype was the acquisition, Microsoft Lync rebranded to Skype business was more in-house from what I understand.
Edit: I just looked it up, it went Live Communication Server -> Office Communication Server -> Lync Server -> Skype for Business server -> on-premise server retired for Microsoft Teams using SharePoint Online Service and Azure Active Directory.
Skype and Teams have one massive advantage to Zoom: You don't have to do "meetings", you can call people individually like with FaceTime/Whatsapp as well.
Exactly. I was an early adopter of Zoom, less than a year after they started. I am currently using Skype. Zoom does not do what I need.
You can do in zoom as well, but only for contacts
@@Ducktility Do what? Zoom does not do what I need.
@@FernandoChaves I was replying to the comment above
@FernandoChaves what do you need exactly
I still use Skype for the simple fact that it is the only real time translation voice call. Seems a lot of people don't know about it but you can call someone and speak to them in real time in a different language. The voice is robotic, it isn't great and gets some stuff wrong, but I can't really find anything else like it, especially for free.
wait really?
@@Player-fg4ub Teams only have live caption (speech to text) and live text translation I think
One thing I don't understand is how the aquisition actually helped Microsoft. It seems like Teams created their own userbase. So if it's not the users that made the aquisition worth it, then what is it? It's not the technology, cause they scrapped that too when transitioning from p2p to server
Experience running video conferencing platform, getting user feedback, trial and error
@@LogicallyAnswered 8.5 billion for feedback and experience seems overvalued
@@chillie_dude I don't think so. Teams charges about $4 - $12 per month per user. So if they have about 100million paying users out of about 300 million that they curretly have, then teams will make that $8 billion in less than 2 years. Thatya big win for Microsoft. They're going to make it at the end of the day.
@@irokpe6977 They also bundle teams with Office 365, so are all those companies using Teams actually paying that amount specifically for Teams? I think more likely, the biggest win is vendor lock-in, as they mentioned in the video. Companies are going to be stuck in Teams for years just like some are still trying to cling to Internet Explorer long past its original expiration date. They're locked into Teams, so they'll keep paying for Office 365. They're also locked into other Office 365 apps, so they might as well keep using Teams.
There was a lot of experience and ideas that translated well from Skype to Teams, main point being that Microsoft now can monetize better all Skype's features in Office365 as enterprise/b2b addons (Teams, telephony, etc).
I don't think they really shut down Skype business. They just converted it to Teams.
Skype business was just a rebranded MS communicator then Lync. Teams was just an overhauled version of Skype for Business and initially had lacking features from Skype in its first release, and added features since.
Teams was Microsoft's slack or discord. Its not overhauled skype
@@LelandVelasco Correct. Teams is a new product and not an upgrade to Skype for Business. Some ideas were borrowed into Teams and some level of interoperability with SfB was added.
Skype for Business was not part of the Skype acquisition. After Microsoft acquired Skype, they rebranded Microsoft Lync as Skype, since Lync was relatively unknown as a brand. The executable is still called Lync.exe. This product, their legacy Lync product, is what they shut down. It was not related to the Skype acquisition in any way, beyond the name. The video kind of falls apart from there.
There is quite a bit missing in this video.
"Launch of Skype for Business in 2015"??? Bro, what about Skype for Business 2013? Lync 2010? Not to mention its predecessor, Office Communicator 2007... More research would have been better around this topic.
To be honest, I never hated Skype at all. In fact, it has carried me through my childhood. Everyone used it, especially in the early to mid 2010s. It was just a nice time but nowadays, Discord has replaced it entirely for me as it has all the features I always liked about Skype.
Teams is definitely killing it
Everyone at my company is slamming our employer for attempting to switch to skype. We were using slack for years. needless to say teams and skype is gone. and slack is here to stay
lol, who is your employer, a small business?
Slack has chat channels. Pretty much it.
Teams has business intelligence integration, cloud services for tech-enabled companies, machine learning (AI) availability, etc.
Slack is a software, whereas Microsoft Teams is an entire, holistic ecosystem.
And everyone at your company is essentially asking for comfort over innovation, thus endangering the future vision of the company.
@@themore-you-know Morgan Stanley is my employer. Not a small company 😂
@@themore-you-know the UI is clunky and slow. Alerts are hit or miss. So many bug issues like when one of my clients called it would default to looking at an unread message from 2 days ago so i have to go back. Maybe its great for some but its a nightmare when trying to just communicate with different departments. We tried to use it for a few weeks and the productivity lost is just not worth it for now. Msft is supposed to be looking into our issues and releasing a better version for us to try. I guess we will see
Teams is massive in the business industry. I had 2 Zoom internship interviews and then 42 Teams interviews over the fall.
I prefer slack over teams
I use Webex, Teams and Zoom daily and still find Webex to be better in most regards. You seemed to dismiss it quickly but I didn't hear the reason. Can you clarify?
Skype was a solid service. Microsoft killed it with required Microsoft integration (that didn't migrate users correctly) and a completely botched redesign that made the core functionality unusable
Man I remember Skype before zoom and Microsoft teams!! Those were the days man!!!
Hahaha, the classic call sound
RIP Skype, i used to use it all the time
I used to use Skype on my desktop all the time back in 2008-2010 but then had no reason with a smart phone anymore. I honestly didn't know what"Zoom"was until the pandemic.
Interesting topic! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and the facts with us on the Skype issue.
1:50 don't do that man i almost just had a heartattack
Keep in mind, and as you already pointed out, you acquire a firm/technology so that your competitor do not acquire it and they do not get an opportunity to shorten the development time.
Teams is awful for anything beyond basic Meetings. If you need to stream larger complex events (think thousands of people watching, fancy affects etc.) Its awful.
Additionally, it has lower reliability then Cisco and Polycom products. (Even lower then Zoom...)
The only reason it was able to do so well is because it comes packaged with Microsoft's other products and Microsoft originally forcefully installed Teams on everyone's computers even if you did not want it.
also schools forcing it.
Teams addons & Office integration is horrible mess. It exists but thats it, cant be expected to function correctly,
Not sure I agree. Reliability of Teams (at least for my org of 800 or so users) has been rock solid and has never had issues and we have a quarterly meeting through Teams with every employee via live event and it has never failed. Ignite a few months ago used Teams and that must have been a few thousands at least. While the default effects in teams are certainly lacking if you know what you are doing you are able to use a virtual camera and use software such as stream labs or OBS to create a multitude of effects. Having said that other than the blur feature I don't think anyone (especially in a business environment) cares about effects such as this. Lastly Teams is more than just a meeting/conferencing tool it is also a sharepoint tool which allows the integration to sites which for an end user is incredibly useful and makes it super easy to sync sites.
Can't disagree with that second paragraph though MS really need to stop that crap.
@@Devit42 And if schools use chromebooks they force google meets and google classroom. If companies use slack they force their employees to use slack.
@@seangraylin 800 users is not bad.
The average size of smaller meetings I run is 600-900. The challenge with smaller events is the many bugs that exist and the fact that Microsoft does not provide any feedback or dates on when or if bugfixes will come out.
Most of the events I am referring to are those that have between 20-80,000 attendees and are large productions.
I use vMix to produce these.
(Similar to OBS.)
( am usually running about 5-6 computers at the same time, with switches and mixers to produce these events myself.
Teams Live Events simply cannot compete with other platforms to meet this size of audience. and remain bug-free.
I could go on, as there are many more serious problems, but I don't want to write another wall of text.
@digital dirtbag why? The person that stated this is an obvious liar who probably has never used Teams
My office was using Skype for communications when I had joined them in 2019. By April 2020 I was told that we would need to transition to MS Teams and that Skype for business was going away. We switched to Teams and its one of the best tools that we use at work. It's very convenient and easy to use. I have tried Zoom but I would prefer to use Teams every chance I get. Cisco's webex is also nice a product for large scale meetings though. Teams utterly fails in that dept. Webex in 2022 is way better than what it was before. Before 2022 it was really crap. I would prefer Skype for business over Webex earlier.
Happy New Years bro!! Let’s make this year a strong one!!
Indeed, Happy New Year to you too Daniel!
Great video- would love to see more business case studies
Thanks for the feedback Wesley!
Never thought I'd like Teams and here I am scheduling meetings
That sound that gives you nightmares lmao, you couldn't be more right :))
😂
great video, but you completely missed the Microsoft Lync part of the equation.
Teams is so popular and used by so many employers because it comes free with Office 365. Personally, I prefer using Zoom over Teams at my job because I can connect to a Zoom meeting without using my work PC.
you can do that with Teams too
My biggest issue with Skype was how when you'd start a call, its quality would be fantastic, but as it progressed the quality would drop and drop with no other way of fixing it but to restart the call entirely, which was a pain for group chats.
false, never happens
Great content👍
Thank you Kolakazeem!
Teams was what my school used during the pandemic too
Skype had reliability issues. The user interface was really heavy on PC and Android devices. However, now they have a light version of Skype also which is far better and stable. I still have Skype installed on my phone. I don't use it really anymore but it is more for nostalgic reasons.
Im stil in bed sorta snoozing. When that alarm went of I really felt it.
I very much appreciate the Skype codec being used to power party chat on Xbox Live, it has been stellar.
These companies are SOOO rich, they purchase companies who have a product better than their own just to kill it. They don't care about "losing" billions. The company is saying "see our competitors always fail" Disney is doing the same thing with Pixar.
We were early users of Skype and we were so impressed with how the Skype services saved us hundred of dollars of overseas phone bill every month when our overseas sales people wee calling their clients all over the world. For those with Skype accounts on both ends, the Skype call was even free. Charges only applied when you called a physical phone number.
1:52 oh god Teams ringtone upsets me so much because they were calls from my bullying boss
Teams only has one big problem: they eat too much ram and cpu, making it unviable for users with low end PCs.
One thing to know about Skype is that it is written in Pascal so it is very hard to maintain
You kept talking about Skype For Business as it was a version of Skype but I'm pretty sure that it was Lync rebrunded.
Great Video!!
Skype was a great program *before* Microsoft bought it.
They made the UI a cluttered mess, riddled the program with ads in attempt to get more money from its many users and i don't see how moving away from P2P was a good choice.
Microsoft Teams is a glorified chat app with a bad UI. Slack is doing a much better job.
I use MS Teams everyday at work and I hate it. It's slow, it's sluggish, UI isn't that good and regularly have issues such as delayed messages, failing to connect, etc. It also has this annoyingly stupid message that whenever you're sending an attachment, it treats it like some kind of file management that it warms you if the same tile was already sent. This happens everytime
I also use teams for work but mine works perfectly fine
About file management I agree
Not to mention companies who lag behind on hardware updates. Our computers were crashing non-stop with MS Teams while they worked.. "okay" with Skype. I can't imagine Skype being worse in performance. Maybe if you're comparing on modern hardware but companies with outdated hardware suffered with MS Teams.
I’m not sure if most unis have but we have switched to teams as well, used to use it all the time during the pandemic but now it’s mostly pre-recorded lectures that we access through it
I heard somewhere that microsoft didn’t buy skype for the sake of buying skype but instead for the technology that skype revolutionised and that they earned a lot of money on licensing that tech to companies like zoom
the power of teams is you need a gaming pc to run it
Oh hey I had completely forgotten about Skype, now it's gone
😢
You keep saying teams revenue is bigger than windows. But you never said how teams makes money and where did you get this number from.
Bro do not play the microsoft teams ring tone your going give people PTSD ☠☠
I actually looked down at my phone to see if someone from work was calling 🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂
Can you make a video on how social media apps gain their user base from scratch?
That sound does give me nightmares😅
I honestly came here thinking the reason you were going to say its their best acq is because under the control of another company or even just as it was, they would've kept innovating to keep it at the top. Whereas, with Microsoft controlling it, they were able to make it terrible and depreciate it while building out their own internal competitor. Basically, I think it was an anti-competition move. I don't see anyone else mirroring this same sentiment, so maybe I'm alone in this thought pattern.
There are two major mistakes here: 1) Microsoft has not ditched consumer markets (B2B has always been the larger source of revenue) 2) the video mixes Skype and Skype for Business (formerly know as Lync). These were two separate services for different customer groups. Teams is the successor of the latter.
But Skype for Business have nothing to do with Skype. It was previously called Lync and was just renamed some time after the acquisition. And was really bad, so no wonder it was shut down.
^^^^^^This
1 product name but 2 separate product evolutions!
Business Only: Skype for Business
Thanks for the video. To be honest Teams is not that wow. It does needs fast network speed of it is useless. It can’t handle slow network.
Wow, I still remember the android app skype had in the early 2010s. It was by far the worst major app I've ever used. It would hang, slow everything down while running in the background, and didn't work so well in general. Maybe it was the peer-to-peer aspect of the app that didn't translate well to mobile. But it was barely usable.
ive recently reinstalled skype as meta has been bullshitting around and suspended me for 3 days for no feason, its been nostalgic to see some conversations i had like 13yrs ago with friends still as a teen, im keeping it active now if anyone comes back online or meta decides to fuck around again its a great alternative
My company still uses Skype for some reason and man it sucks so much. Calls get triggered after 30 seconds of pressing the button, voice messages sometime omit the first few seconds and its very slow.
There are a few things missing here. For one, Teams uses the re-written "cloud based" Skype media infrastructure. All the work MS did to move Skype away from peer-to-peer is still being used in Teams. All the learnings from that migration are applied. Also, Skype calling is mentioned but it's not highlighted nearly enough. The acquisition of Skype made MS a Telco of sorts. Fast forward to Teams calling and Microsoft is top of the Gartner quadrant for UC as a Service. This wouldn't have happened without the Skype acquisition.
Skype isn't bad now I was just trying it only reason I don't use it is nobody else does
poor google meet 😂 like totally forgotten about here
Hahaha
Gave me PTSD with the alarms. Thought I was in a call while doing chores 😅
I never gave Skye a chance due to a little hype aversion and a lack of any real need for it. By the time I did have a need for teleconferencing, the backlash to Skype had reached the same pitch as the hype, and there were plenty of alternatives. I've tried all the alternatives and can't say that dislike any of them. I do like compartmentalization between my work (Teams), my school (Zoom) and my gaming (Discord), and never want for them to meet on one platform.
Accurate. Source: Used to be a swe at microsoft
You should do video about WebEx too
The Teams the service is fine. The Teams client on the other hand is a piece of garbage and needs a complete overhaul.
Microsoft's good old Austin Power's villain strategy of EEE, "Embrace, extend, and extinguish"
I didn't mind skype. I was actually sad to see it go. But I did switch to Discord myself.
I’m working with about 100 companies and every single one of them either uses Teams already or is planning to use it within the next 24 Months. I definitely can see your point.
Microsoft Lync --> Microsoft Skype for Business. It wasn't as if Skype for business was a recent invention for Microsoft.
Teams user growth from 2021 us mainly due to windows 11 having teams as default to every one and making ms account mandatory for windows 11 home. (which majority of oems includes)
Yes alot of corporates also uses it but that significant growth is mostly due to windows 11 and not all the 270m users are paid customer.
Buying out the competition. Basic monopoly strategy.
I remember when Skype was available on the PSP. That’s how i first found out about it.
To be fair we have been ungrateful to Skype, it should never had been in decline, Skype had video call and every cool features long before whatsapp and the others came in. We are ungrateful.
Story as old as tech: company A buys out Company B. Company A shuts down Company B. Company A releases new products using IP (intellectual property, not internet protocol) from buyout of company B.
Teams is amazing and an excellent collabaration tool.
Microsoft could have renamed teams for personal use in windows 11. It is odd to tell someone call me on teams, “skype me” was a good branding.
get this man a job in microsoft!
I never hated old technology, rather I becomes sad if something I was using becomes old, unpopular and repressed by new, such: Messenger over Polish Gadu-Gadu, Discord/Teamspeak over Skype, Facebook over Polish Our Class and older MySpace, here only Tumblr is still working old social media website. If other people would stay using old technology, I would also stay, I used Windows Phone 7 and later 8, 8.1 and Mobile 10, and I'm very sad that this system development/maintenece was discontinued :(
I used teams basically for most of my everyday communications with my work, followed by Outlook. I am surprised by how quite is the public and media about Microsoft growing domination over the day-to-day life of people.
I'm still using Skype and Yahoo email old habits die hard
I love Skype as a brand, but I hate MS Teams. They should have used Skype brand for the MS Teams. At least it doesn’t sound boring.
This just shows how bad the skype Aquisition was for Microsoft. Skype for Business was a simple rebrand of Lync, a technology Microsoft already had which would go on to form part of the technology stack of teams along with SharePoint (uuhh).
Not long after Microsoft acquired Skype, they discarded all of the skype server technology and migrated to the in-house MSN Messenger (later Windows Live Messenger) enabling interoperability between skype accounts and Microsoft accounts (most users ended up with multiple accounts with the same e-mail address). Microsoft later shut down Windows Live Messenger, but the service continues its life under the Skype brand.
As mobile connectivity became important, Microsoft struggled to add features such as offline messages, and syncing messages to multiple devices that competing messaging apps already had. You would often lose messages using Skype. Some of this can be attributed to the various thiefdoms within Microsoft made worse by the Skype acquisition. Without Skype it's possible that Windows Live Messenger would have innovated past Skype and still be around as a viable competitor to iMessage and WhatsApp.
Despite the failings as a messenger app (Skype is basically unusable), it still had a strong association with cheap voice to the PSTN (Skype out) and video conferencing.
Team is free to use and only cost if you add more features. It is is more a defense rather than offense strategy for Microsoft. Zoom enjoys a brief success however it is doomed to failed in the long term since it is a single product company and lack of synergy. Would you buy a non-apple ear pod if you have an iPhone?
Microsoft has been making very good acquisitions, Linked in and Skype were both pretty good investment.
I still think that they should buy Yahoo! Just for the legacy e-mail users to integrate into their businesses.
Yeah. No with teams it's monthly licensing through office 365 licensing or at most a yearly sub through a csp
It's a misleading title. Should be "Skype for Business" and not "Skype Business".
The phrase "Skype Business" sounds like "Microsoft's business that is running Skype".
Skype is still running/working! (January 2023)
Teams is simply amazing to use with full integration with Microsoft 365.
Microsoft has a history of acquire and extinguish the competition, then add features into their product.
Skype for Business and Lync was better. They Moved to Teams for compete with slack. It made more sense as they brought various other products under MS Teams umbrella and derived a different product all together.
I almost crapped myself when I heard the Teams sound
They refused to take payments from my credit card, and no one could explain why… customer service didn’t have a phone number, just a chat service. It was like they were allergic to money.
that’s your problem, credit cards can get declined yknow
that's the thing. it wasn't a declined payment. my credit card approved it, I could even see it as a temp charge. i called my credit card company that confirmed it. i called skype who had no explanation whatsoever on why they didn't take my money@@sizquirt
I hate you for playing the teams ring tone LOOL
😂
I still don't understand why they bought Skype, they had MSN messenger.
1:50 sir, please don't play that sound 🤣
😂
You're totally wrong on mobile. MS were initially messed up mobie, but it was ok as the early 2000s was nascent and experimental. What killed MS mobile later, was apps. Not UX. Windows Phone OS and the Nokia h/ware was perfect synergy, but MS couldn't get devs on board. Maybe all this coincided with the Steve Balmer era. By 2009 and iPhone they missed their chance to cement a substantial lead.
The ONLY reason our business opted to use Zoom instead of Teams during the pandemic is because Teams only supported 4 video feeds on a call at the time, where Zoom supported 50+
Skype was killed by Zoom, Then Microsoft Teams killed Zoom for professional use.
Pretty much
While it is true that significantly more companies use Teams for INTERNAL meetings, but for external, especially those participating by people from multiple firms, zoom is still the preferred platform
Teams is great after setup, but the setup can be a bitch
Zooms is so easy to setup my grandma could do it after a 5 minute explanation and making one poor drawing, but beyond that its lacking
No guys it's not Accenture only Skype