Home

Skype for Business IM

Highlighted
Rich Lewis
Occasional Contributor

Simple question: Does (or will) Teams make the IM part of SfB redundant? Why have two 'chat' or real-time messaging apps? I can see that SfB will still be needed for video/voice calls, online meetings and screen sharing, but the IM bit? Not so much.

 

Thanks,

Rich.

5 Replies

I've been wondering the same thing. The only advantage I can see is that SfB backs up to Outlook. We have SfB online so this really helps with the ridiculous lack of persistent chat.

have you gone to teams.microsoft.com yet and signed in?

I hadn't (been using the desktop app and mobile app up to this point). Didn't even realise there was a web client TBH! Anyway, I've just checked it out. Looks good. How is that relevant to my question about SfB's IM function though?

As long as you don't need to share control of your screen, group and video calls incl. screen sharing in Microsoft Teams would be an alternative for Skype for Business, too.

 

Frankly, we are planning to replace Skype for Business and Slack with Microsoft Teams eventually. Assuming it works as well as announced ...

Hey, yeah, see what you mean! I hadn't actually tried voice/video calls from Teams - I just assumed starting a call within Teams would launch SfB, but no! It's all inline. Nice.

 

Maybe you still need SfB for external online meetings? And for PSTN calls?

 

And I guess if you don't have a Business/Enterprise O365 plan, but still wanted some sort of communication tool, you could buy SfB in isolation.