Yes that's really helpful. As a software engineer by trade, I totally understand wanting to maintain flow.
Someone else in the thread talked about how to find the balance between what's most productive for you and what's most productive for the team. I think that's going to be key for our users as well.
That's great feedback. Honestly, we haven't set up a team larger than 5 at this point.
However, I also believe that 3-5 is roughly the amount of people who you actually work really closely with. These units are probably the right grouping for who is in one room.
There is no actual max number, but I do think the design and the use case would fall apart right now. But there's some things we're thinking about like separate channels that might help with this.
> I believe that 3-5 is roughly the amount of people...right grouping for one room
Isaac Asimov commented maximum creativity is 3-5, but a variety of firms have found the optimal team size is a “two pizza team” (6 to 10, typically 8).
Google the term, you get tons of discussion from blogs to journalism, that can lead you to papers:
In any case, what pattern does the screen divide into for 5? Of course there is a max number, arguably the number of individual pixels if you wanted each participant’s presence indicated by a single dot, but the practical limit is much lower. How many can you do? Why not test more?
Currently Teams on iPad is 9, the increase from 4 was news:
I think this subscription pricepoint would be a big turnoff for 'home use', especially when you are competing with free facetime that fills the gap well enough.
Thanks for the feedback! Yes, we're going for a different use case than Facebook Portal or other dedicated hardware devices with video are. We're not just trying to make meetings easier and better, we're trying to simulate the magic of being in the same room.
