I wasn’t trying to be contrary — we’re all trying to make sense of the messaging, which is in turn trying to make sense of a necessarily complicated product strategy to address the very disrupted productivity market. There were just a few turns of phrase in your post that I squinted at and wanted to offer an alternative POV. For example, the “filtered view vs. community” take on Outlook Groups vs. Yammer Groups didn’t work for me — Yammer is all about a filtered view because of the way I use it.
On another read, you do talk a lot more about multiple modalities / styles than I remember, so yes, you do get my take on why the multiple offerings. Perhaps what you’re saying is that offering different modalities won’t matter in the end because if the same immersive collaboration features are available in both an email-centric experience and a feed-centric experience, then the email-centric (Outlook-centric) experience will win share by default?
I think your example of the success of Slack is evidence that this isn’t necessarily the case. I’ve been using Outlook Groups for months now, and while I can see the attraction to the Outlook-addicted, it’s certainly not as seamless and simple as it needs to be. I still prefer Yammer for day to day work (note I didn’t say “community interaction”).
Now, will Outlook Groups is very much a v1.0 Will it quickly catch up to Yammer? Likely! On the other hand, Yammer’s been pretty focused on the backend. When they return to a focus on front-end and O365 Group Service integration, will it pass up Outlook Groups again with more simplicity? Also likely!
My answer to “which tool when”… still stands: It’s the wrong question.