undefined | Better HN

0 pointsOrygin1y ago0 comments

I admit I didn't read the entirety of the post, but I read the following:

> Many of our clients came to us after trying the Microsoft built-in Wiki. It was clunky, inconvenient, and didn’t do the job well. We focused on simplicity: the essential features only, nothing extra — and everything should function inside Microsoft Teams.

So I know it wasn't a coincidence, and rarely are such software built without understanding the needs first.

I just wanted to point out that in this case, the business relies on Microsoft not doing a proper job. Otherwise they would be at a serious risk of being Sherlocked by the provider.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

darkwater1y ago· 1 in thread

They already expanded it to Slack and other platforms.

OryginOP1y ago

Slack is, I think, mainly focused on the messaging and relies on third parties to integrate other features. Microsoft is a behemoth that wants to sell their complete software suite and tries to integrate all of them together for a "seamless" experience. They do have an incentive for their own products to be good and used instead of third parties.

Plus once they realize how much data is in these wikis, they will want to ingest them for AI (if not already done), so there is an incentive for them to have more users on their solution instead.

Edit: And even if the OP is not relying only on MS for sales, they still depend heavily on them and their App Store. They are not competing with Confluence or other systems, they are competing with Teams itself.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse