I find it funny how some companies first refused to adopt slack due to lack on onsite storage, later adopted teams with no such reservations
Slack was more focused on the end user while Microsoft focuses on the customer (which for most of their cash cows, Windows and Office) is IT.
Presumabably you think this concern is somewhere between overblown and absurd. I do. But if you’re State Farm* you have to either find a solution or get air cover for your decision by offloading it on your long term, trusted vendor. (This is basically half of the thesis of the article).
The need to have a story for all these special cases is why Microsoft’s messaging is so confusing and their products frequently (but not always) unwieldy. But it lets them hoover up the cash for all those special cases...and since others can’t afford to deal with every one, they can charge more.
In other words: “We need offline storage in case something goes wrong. But nobody offers it. Well I’ll stick with ms because at least if someone complains I can point to the company we’ve always chosen”
This is why Oracle still does so well. Don’t get me wrong: they have some high end features few others offer. But many people could do fine with something simpler, but why take a chance?
When the trade off is “get something better for the company” versus “risk losing my job” which are you going to choose?