โฒ 1106 โผ Teams apparently can't call when using Firefox (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by qaz@lemmy.world to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world 197 comments fedilink hide all child comments Teams also doesn't support multiple "work" accounts, so I had to boot up a laptop to accept the call. ๐คท
[โ] frankenswine@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can make it work by changing your UserAgent string (there's plugins for that) to some older chrome version to make things work. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) The problem I have with this though is if enough people on Firefox spoof their user agent to Chrome, it's gonna look like less and less people are using Firefox and Chrome will eventually have a monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Not sure that's how monopoly work, the folks on both end will still have data of their actual userbase permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Sorry I dont really understand your point, it could be my bad English. I'm gonna explain my point further; You can make it look like you're using Chrome when you're not, and if everyone just makes it look like they're using Chrome, then developers will only support Chrome and Google can and will pull off whatever shit they want to like Web DRM, just under a different name which they've done in the past. So the minority using Firefox won't have proper support and will see more pop ups like these from more websites. The only difference being whatever feature the website needs actually won't be supported on Firefox because developers only see that everyone is using "Chrome". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] Kyouki@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago How about not having these arbitrary not needed restrictions in the first place? This is just the usual scummy behavior from this company. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Yes the developers will see the spoofed data like you said.. But is the UA the only classifier? Would like to hear a devs opinion. Maybe the people making those decisions need to be sensitive about this skewed data. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] hypertext@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They already have a monopoly. The amount of people using FF is pretty small unfortunately. And there's a bunch of sites that only test in Chrome and sometimes even actively "block" Firefox like here without making an effort to check for capabilities instead of user agent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago sadge. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] frankenswine@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I think you can spoof per tab/container. i used an exclusive Firefox Profile for the bad/contaminated (read: not privacy respecting) browsing - in there i'd ocasionally switch the UserAgent to make Teams calls. there's no way i'd work on a machine with M$ spyware installed and always running permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) The problem I have with this though is if enough people on Firefox spoof their user agent to Chrome, it's gonna look like less and less people are using Firefox and Chrome will eventually have a monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Not sure that's how monopoly work, the folks on both end will still have data of their actual userbase permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Sorry I dont really understand your point, it could be my bad English. I'm gonna explain my point further; You can make it look like you're using Chrome when you're not, and if everyone just makes it look like they're using Chrome, then developers will only support Chrome and Google can and will pull off whatever shit they want to like Web DRM, just under a different name which they've done in the past. So the minority using Firefox won't have proper support and will see more pop ups like these from more websites. The only difference being whatever feature the website needs actually won't be supported on Firefox because developers only see that everyone is using "Chrome". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] Kyouki@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago How about not having these arbitrary not needed restrictions in the first place? This is just the usual scummy behavior from this company. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Yes the developers will see the spoofed data like you said.. But is the UA the only classifier? Would like to hear a devs opinion. Maybe the people making those decisions need to be sensitive about this skewed data. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] hypertext@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They already have a monopoly. The amount of people using FF is pretty small unfortunately. And there's a bunch of sites that only test in Chrome and sometimes even actively "block" Firefox like here without making an effort to check for capabilities instead of user agent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago sadge. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] frankenswine@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I think you can spoof per tab/container. i used an exclusive Firefox Profile for the bad/contaminated (read: not privacy respecting) browsing - in there i'd ocasionally switch the UserAgent to make Teams calls. there's no way i'd work on a machine with M$ spyware installed and always running permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Not sure that's how monopoly work, the folks on both end will still have data of their actual userbase permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Sorry I dont really understand your point, it could be my bad English. I'm gonna explain my point further; You can make it look like you're using Chrome when you're not, and if everyone just makes it look like they're using Chrome, then developers will only support Chrome and Google can and will pull off whatever shit they want to like Web DRM, just under a different name which they've done in the past. So the minority using Firefox won't have proper support and will see more pop ups like these from more websites. The only difference being whatever feature the website needs actually won't be supported on Firefox because developers only see that everyone is using "Chrome". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] Kyouki@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago How about not having these arbitrary not needed restrictions in the first place? This is just the usual scummy behavior from this company. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Yes the developers will see the spoofed data like you said.. But is the UA the only classifier? Would like to hear a devs opinion. Maybe the people making those decisions need to be sensitive about this skewed data. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Sorry I dont really understand your point, it could be my bad English. I'm gonna explain my point further; You can make it look like you're using Chrome when you're not, and if everyone just makes it look like they're using Chrome, then developers will only support Chrome and Google can and will pull off whatever shit they want to like Web DRM, just under a different name which they've done in the past. So the minority using Firefox won't have proper support and will see more pop ups like these from more websites. The only difference being whatever feature the website needs actually won't be supported on Firefox because developers only see that everyone is using "Chrome". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] Kyouki@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago How about not having these arbitrary not needed restrictions in the first place? This is just the usual scummy behavior from this company. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Yes the developers will see the spoofed data like you said.. But is the UA the only classifier? Would like to hear a devs opinion. Maybe the people making those decisions need to be sensitive about this skewed data. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] Kyouki@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago How about not having these arbitrary not needed restrictions in the first place? This is just the usual scummy behavior from this company. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Yes the developers will see the spoofed data like you said.. But is the UA the only classifier? Would like to hear a devs opinion. Maybe the people making those decisions need to be sensitive about this skewed data. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] hypertext@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They already have a monopoly. The amount of people using FF is pretty small unfortunately. And there's a bunch of sites that only test in Chrome and sometimes even actively "block" Firefox like here without making an effort to check for capabilities instead of user agent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago sadge. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] frankenswine@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I think you can spoof per tab/container. i used an exclusive Firefox Profile for the bad/contaminated (read: not privacy respecting) browsing - in there i'd ocasionally switch the UserAgent to make Teams calls. there's no way i'd work on a machine with M$ spyware installed and always running permalink fedilink source parent
