Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

blog.doist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 220 posts

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#51

Post by mkohlmyr »

tonylucas wrote: post #33
mkohlmyr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've really heard much about that product since the announcement. Is it good? And are accounts tied to Facebook proper? That would turn me off completely.

Disclaimer: Workplace Partner @ Job I was cynical about it to begin with, when it was just 'Facebook at Work' but I do believe it addresses a lot of the issues brought up in the blog post and the Workplace team are executing very well. Accounts are completely separate from Facebook, no crossover at all. I don't think it's a Slack killer, as they both solve different problems in different ways, and Workplace is very m…

Sounds pretty decent! Would be interested in trying it if my employer didn't roll its own team chat for this purpose.

Maybe Slack should be worried too. They may have a tough road ahead growing into the valuation between Facebook Workplace, Microsoft Teams, Atlassian HipChat and Amazon Chime.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#53

Post by kuon »

josephg wrote: post #32
akhilcacharya wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, isn't Dropbox just prettier rsync?

And Slack is a modern version of IRC :) It keep being surprised by how much a fresh coat of CSS and a mobile app can reinvigorate these old ideas. Who knew how important adding gifs and emoticons would be?

Add gif to HN you will realize how great it will become! (please don't)

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#55

Post by TheRealmccoy »

The biggest drawback of a real time communication tool like Slack is the React v/s Respond conundrum.

Productive communication and teamwork requires that we respond, rather than react.

What happens specifically with tools like Slack which start off as demi-official tool and then transcend to official is that, one gets into the habit of reacting, instead of responding.

I have personally seen this "fastest finger first" played, almost always.

There has been tons of literature written on reacting v/s responding and I need not dwell into it.

Another aspect is that there is no exit, once Slack is the primary communication tool. One is forced to use it, otherwise you are like an outcast and people more often tend to take it as a signal that the person is on its way out and hence moved away from Slack.

Rest of the drawbacks is documented in the article.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#56

Post by detaro »

josephg wrote: post #32
akhilcacharya wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, isn't Dropbox just prettier rsync?

And Slack is a modern version of IRC :) It keep being surprised by how much a fresh coat of CSS and a mobile app can reinvigorate these old ideas. Who knew how important adding gifs and emoticons would be?

I'd say history access/logging by default, easy sign-up, easy management/configuration are all way more important reasons. Someone very likely could have gotten all that working as a good product based on IRC, but they didn't. (I use IRC a lot more than Slack, but my requirements are not the same as those of a company adopting Slack)

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#57

Post by amix »

elipollak wrote: post #30

Really nice post. We've suffered similar challenges using slack with our remote team and switched to Basecamp, which has been much better. What's your sense of how Twist and Basecamp compare?

Twist is just about communication. Basecamp has a bit of everything, but it isn't particularly good at any of the things.

We wanted to create a product that just does one thing really well (and that's team communication).

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#58

Post by lewisjoe »

Curious question: Isn't this an already solved problem? I've been using plain old emails and quiet free of all the problems of real-time messaging.

"Thread-first communication" - We have it. Email threads. I've been using Zoho Mail. It's one step ahead and has modern concepts like streams/commenting and sharing built around emails. Very useful.

"Truly transparent conversations" - What this means is, the knowledge has to be highly searchable. Also, not all threads have to be public. With emails, you can either broadcast an email company wide or you can opt to pull in relevant users into a conversation. Makes a lot of sense to not broadcast everything company-wide, isn't it? More importantly, emails are easily searchable. Once received, I'm confident that it's going to sit there in my inbox forever, without worrying if it's going to be deleted later by someone who has authority.

"Leaving out the online presence indicator" - Exactly. Emails.

Maybe there's some more important key aspects that the product's covering up for me. As for me, I guess emails are simply good enough!

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#59

Post by wpietri »

onion2k wrote: post #15
jasonkester wrote: post #8

I worked at a Slack shop for several years, and share the author's opinion. I can't think of any five minute period during my entire tenure where the Slack tab didn't have a little red circle telling me that I absolutely needed to check it right this second. There was no way to filter notifications beyond "Everything", so that little bubble would go up every time anybody in the company pressed a key. And heaven forbi…

And heaven forbid somebody typed "Good morning, @channel" (which happened 20 times per morning per timezone), because then you'd get the dreaded Red Exclamation Mark in the tab. That isn't a problem with Slack. That's a problem with the way people are using Slack. If the only workable fix is to use a different tool you have a far bigger problem at your company. I can't fathom how anybody would have been able to work…

> That isn't a problem with Slack. That's a problem with the way people are using Slack.

The notion that tools exist in some sort of vacuum away from users baffles me. Since Slack's only purpose is talking with other people, I don't how one can even theoretically evaluate it separate from usage.

This is a very common thing that happens with Slack. If it were just one team struggling to use it well, you might have a point. But past a certain size, I've only ever seen Slacks that a) have a problem with @channel, or b) have a carefully developed and enforced culture of controlling use of @channel.

I think the sophisticated version of this argument is "only experts should use use complex/difficult/dangerous tools". Which is a reasonable argument when talking about, say, wiring up detonators. But Slack's purpose is to connect everybody in a company. Suggesting that Slack is only for experts is to limit its market to a very small segment.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#60

Post by amix »

amix wrote: post #50

I am the poster of this (and as you can see, I am an old HN user -- almost ten years here!) I'll be answering your questions. Thanks for the support!

Please also note that Twist will have a full and open API. You can see a draft here: https://doist.github.io/Twist-API/
Post reply on HN