Teams Free

[brholman]

Microsoft Teams Free is a free offering that we are using in our stake and I've hear of a few others doing the same. It offers interactive video conferencing (no 40 minute limit like Zoom), direct instant messaging (chat), group instant messaging (channels), and shared file storage. In other words, it's Slack and Zoom combined. Perhaps Teams' best quality is that, if it is set up right (see below), it offers a simple zoom-like user experience to join a meeting with/or without a Microsoft Account and on any device.

If you pursue this path, I recommend the following:

(1) Setup a "stake" Microsoft Account and us it to setup Teams for the Stake. That way it's not tied to one person.

(2) Setup a "Team" for the Stake with private or open channels for each leadership body or topic of conversation. We set one up private channels for the Stake Presidency, the Stake High Council, the Bishops, and the stake organizations and open channels on the topics of missionary work, family history work, physical facilities, etc.

(3) If Wards want to use it, setup a "Team" for each ward with private channels or open channels for each leadership body/group/etc.

Hope that helps!

[sbradshaw]

It looks like it was just in the last few months that the maximum number of users for a free Teams account went from 300 to 500,000 per organization, and that video meetings can be set up by non-paid users. It also looks like meetings couldn't be scheduled in advance before in free Teams, but they can now – is that correct? Can meetings be scheduled by any member of the organization? Can recurring meetings be scheduled?

The Microsoft page that compares the free and paid versions says that the paid version offers more tools for managing users. What kind of user management is there in the free version – is it sufficient to allow ward or stake leaders to limit channels to members of their ward, or remove people who abuse the system? What about adding and removing people as they move in or out of the ward? Can ward and stake leaders have different "levels" of admin access for managing within their sphere?

What are the technical barriers for joining a meeting (picturing a user who isn't fully comfortable with tech)? Do they have to install an app, or can they join a meeting in the web browser? Can they join the meeting directly with a link? Do they have to "sign up" to be a member of the organization, to be able to access meetings? Can they call into a meeting by phone?

Can non-interactive meetings initiated in Teams (like a sacrament meeting or stake conference) be streamed to an external location like Meetinghouse Webcast, YouTube Live, etc.?

If you have a Teams account for work and a stake Teams account, is it easy to switch between them?

I don't like the UI of Microsoft Teams, but despite its UI, with the recent changes to the free tier it seems like a powerful competitor and worth considering.

[brholman]

It looks like it was just in the last few months that the maximum number of users for a free Teams account went from 300 to 500,000 per organization, and that video meetings can be set up by non-paid users. It also looks like meetings couldn't be scheduled in advance before in free Teams, but they can now – is that correct? Can meetings be scheduled by any member of the organization? Can recurring meetings be scheduled?

>Bill. Meetings can be scheduled in advance. Meetings can be schedule by anyone in the organization. I don't see a way for a meeting to recur, however, the same meeting URL can be used over and over again.

The Microsoft page that compares the free and paid versions says that the paid version offers more tools for managing users. What kind of user management is there in the free version – is it sufficient to allow ward or stake leaders to limit channels to members of their ward, or remove people who abuse the system? What about adding and removing people as they move in or out of the ward? Can ward and stake leaders have different "levels" of admin access for managing within their sphere?

>Bill. The admin (the account that set Teams up) has the ability to add/remove users to the entire Org. They can also turn on/off the ability for "members" to invite others to the Org. Once someone is in the Org they can only see the Teams they have been added to. Adding/removing members to/from Teams and to/from Channels under Teams can be done by Owners of Teams/Channels. Owners can be set up by the Admin. So, there's a pretty good delegation hierarchy.

What are the technical barriers for joining a meeting (picturing a user who isn't fully comfortable with tech)? Do they have to install an app, or can they join a meeting in the web browser? Can they join the meeting directly with a link? Do they have to "sign up" to be a member of the organization, to be able to access meetings? Can they call into a meeting by phone?

>Bill. On mobile, they click a URL and it helps them download the app and then immediately joins (just like Zoom). No need to setup an account. On computers, the URL takes them to a landing page and they can either join immediately - using just a web browser - or download the app, create an account, and join that way (a little richer experience). In short, using any mobile device or web browser does not require account creation to join a meeting.

Can non-interactive meetings initiated in Teams (like a sacrament meeting or stake conference) be streamed to an external location like Meetinghouse Webcast, YouTube Live, etc.?

>Bill. Not that I'm aware of. I would recommend using the Church webcast system + android phone + larix broadcaster for that. It works great.

If you have a Teams account for work and a stake Teams account, is it easy to switch between them?

>Bill. On phone, it works perfect switching between a personal account (tied to the stake) and a business account (tied to work) . On desktop, multi-account is not quite there yet. So, I use the web app logged into the stake (with my personal account) and the client logged into the business account (with the installed Teams Client).

I don't like the UI of Microsoft Teams, but despite its UI, with the recent changes to the free tier it seems like a powerful competitor and worth considering.

[lajackson]

... they can either join immediately - using just a web browser - or download the app, create an account, and join that way

I participated in my first Teams meeting last week. It was immediately evident that I had been spoiled by Zoom.

I clicked on the link (there is no apparent way to type in a meeting number). I received several options. I am averse to downloading software, so I did not do that. I tried to connect using my current browser (Firefox) and was warned that if I continued I would not be able to hear the meeting; I would have to dial in by phone for audio. A non-starter.

The next option was to use Edge to join the meeting. I did, and could both see (some) and hear.

In the meeting the first thing I noticed is that my video was backwards and I was not able to find a way to switch it. Afterwards, I learned that this was intentional on the part of Microsoft and that my video was normal to those who received it. Many electrons were killed in the ensuing discussions.

In the meeting I could not see anyone else except the host, but I could not always see the host. If someone else spoke (or generated a noise), the host disappeared and another person appeared. Because of the delay, even in Zoom I do not often use that feature. Afterwards, I learned that I should have been able to see up to four people (the current limit, but planned for expansion), and everyone else was represented by a circle with two initials.

The host was able to accomplish the purpose of the meeting, but I only heard other participants during the discussion that followed. I never found a way to go full-screen on the presentation, so it was very difficult to read the small print. Fortunately, the presentation was based on a pdf file that had already been sent, and I could easily see everything that way. If the material had been new, I would not have seen what I needed to see.

So overall, I had a terrible experience. I began by attributing this to my first time participation in a Teams meeting. But as I searched afterward for tips to be better prepared for the next time, I soon discovered that, even in future meetings, I will not expect to have any more than a sub-par experience.

Again, the meeting got the job done, but the experience did not work at all. I hope I am never invited to a Teams meeting again unless something changes.

But it is free and would probably work well for a one-way meeting.

[russellhltn]

In the meeting the first thing I noticed is that my video was backwards and I was not able to find a way to switch it. Afterwards, I learned that this was intentional on the part of Microsoft and that my video was normal to those who received it. Many electrons were killed in the ensuing discussions.

I'm pretty sure Zoom does the same. It least it did in some of the meetings I've attended.

Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding. Zoom showed me a "mirror image" of my video, which seemed as natural as standing in front of the bathroom mirror. Seeing "normal video" would seem odd.

[brholman]

So overall, I had a terrible experience. I began by attributing this to my first time participation in a Teams meeting. But as I searched afterward for tips to be better prepared for the next time, I soon discovered that, even in future meetings, I will not expect to have any more than a sub-par experience.

Sounds like a rough experience. No fun! Having logged many hours hosting both Zoom and Teams meetings I've found that they have gotten pretty similar for interactive meetings. However, I recognize that experiences may certainly vary - especially when you are used to using one tool or the other. I also admit I haven't tried Teams or Zoom very much using non-chromium-based browsers such as Firefox - I've always used Chrome, Brave, or (New) Edge.

If Zoom didn't have a 40 minute meeting limit on it's free account, it's a pretty obvious answer given that so many people are used to how it works. But, the fact that Teams is free - with no ads and no participant or time limits on use - makes it a viable option for people to explore. It may be better than having YM/YW/RS/EQ each paying $15/month.

[lajackson]

Zoom showed me a "mirror image" of my video, which seemed as natural as standing in front of the bathroom mirror. Seeing "normal video" would seem odd.

Apparently, Microsoft feels the same way. Many others do not. I am not standing in front of a mirror. Having been in the broadcasting business for many years, I want to be looking at the picture that the people are seeing, not something backwards. Mirror image is a real problem when you are writing or showing other text information, or trying to read it.

I believe I recall that Zoom defaulted to the mirror image when I first used it, but it was a very simple thing in Settings to uncheck that box.

[lajackson]

I haven't tried Teams or Zoom very much using non-chromium-based browsers such as Firefox - I've always used Chrome, Brave, or (New) Edge.

If Zoom didn't have a 40 minute meeting limit on it's free account, it's a pretty obvious answer given that so many people are used to how it works. But, the fact that Teams is free - with no ads and no participant or time limits on use - makes it a viable option for people to explore. It may be better than having YM/YW/RS/EQ each paying $15/month.

It appeared that Teams was not even going to work in Firefox, which is which I switched to the recommend Edge.

I agree that everyone paying for Zoom is not a good option. I would probably check out Google Meet next if I were going to originate a lot of lengthy (more than 40 minutes) meetings. What I believe is happening is that many are using paid Zoom accounts from school or work, or a stake has paid for an account for stake activities and is letting wards use it on a noninterference basis.

And I emphasize that, although I personally did not have a good experience with Teams, it appears to be a very viable and workable solution for many who are more familiar with it.

[russellhltn]

I would probably check out Google Meet next if I were going to originate a lot of lengthy (more than 40 minutes) meetings.

Note that the free Google Meet will be limited to 60 minutes as of September 30th.

[sbradshaw]

I wouldn't be surprised if the browser version of Teams doesn't have all of the options that the app version has. I use Teams for work, the desktop app, and it allows for more than 4 participants at a time. It also allows the presentation to be focused (if someone is sharing their screen, it is focused by default, even if other people are speaking).