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

Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 224 posts

Re: Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

#131

Post by mosselman »

swarnie_ wrote: post #97
mosselman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Skype of today is crap compared to the first Skype I used and loved. It is completely unclear what it tries to be now and the interface is horrible. I have an unlimited-Europe plan with it and a phone number attached to it, but I'd rather use something else some day. I haven't found any cheaper alternatives though. Maybe someone here can point one out to me.

> It is completely unclear what it tries to be now and the interface is horrible. Instant messenger, internet phone and video/presentation conferencing. Am i missing something here because its literally my primary business communication tool.

It isn't aimed at being a good business communication tool though. It has a strange design that obviously tries to be cool and hip, but lacks proper visual hierarchy and contrast. It is hard to use if you aren't tech-savvy. My mother ends up calling me on Telegram of all things because in her mind Skype isn't something you call with anymore. Even though I then call her on Skype because Telegram doesn't have video. She used to have a Skype-phone (physical unit), but support for that has died out pretty quickly.

Re: Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

#132

Post by xemdetia »

ginko wrote: post #43
mattmanser wrote: post #10

Stewart Butterfield, Slack’s chief executive, said in an interview that it would take time for the market to understand his company since it had created a new category of software, unlike soda or cars We've had public business software companies for decades, they all created a new "category" of software, why does he think his is something new? Fundamentally speaking, how is Slack any different to the first email prog…

Why do people keep comparing slack to email? It's nothing like email. It's just an instant messenger.

This is the ultra-aggressive marketing that Slack has been pushing ever since they got any traction. They seem to pitch that idea to anyone who will listen even though like you say, it makes no sense.

Re: Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

#133

Post by paxys »

dpark wrote: post #109
mytailorisrich wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For its second fiscal quarter, Slack posted a loss of $364 million, [...] . That included $307 million in stock-based compensation and taxes related to the company’s direct listing. 364-307=57

Thanks. Was the “stock-based compensation” a one time side effect of the listing? Or is this an ongoing quarterly cost?

It will be an ongoing cost, however the $307m number includes 5+ years of stock grants at much lower valuations which were all realized at once. Future costs will be much lower, more in line with regular payroll spending.

Re: Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

#134

Post by gamegod »

w8rbt wrote: post #54
squeaky-clean wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't sound that different from Gmail to me.

Gmail was not the first email program (which is what the OP asked about). Gmail came several decades after email was invented and already in widespread use. You may or may not realize this fact (depending on your age).

Gmail's a bad comparison because it never had to make money directly - it was just there to help Google build and maintain their search monopoly by acting as another data source and shutting out competitors. Slack, on the other hand, needs to make money because chat is their only product.

Re: Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

#136

Post by techslave »

mping wrote: post #122
mattmanser wrote: post #10

Stewart Butterfield, Slack’s chief executive, said in an interview that it would take time for the market to understand his company since it had created a new category of software, unlike soda or cars We've had public business software companies for decades, they all created a new "category" of software, why does he think his is something new? Fundamentally speaking, how is Slack any different to the first email prog…

People always forget about UI/UX and ecosystem. You could argue that we had cellphones for ages, why would someone need an iPhone? You could also argue that an android has the same functionality as an iPhone, again why would someone need an iPhone? The new "category" of software is about how people relate to software, not the software itself. IKEA created a new category of furniture, or it did not? I think Uber creat…

maybe so, but that’s not his argument.

his argument is that it’s so new that people don’t grok it yet. (which of course is wrong)

Re: Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

#137

Post by techslave »

SeeDave wrote: post #104

I don't know enough about the Slack product or business model to comment authoritatively, but I'm really confused how they're losing money (and so much of it) and I sense a bit of "weirdness" around unit economics/user conversion/pricing. I've long thought that they've essentially built beautiful native/mobile/web clients for IRC-type chats and provide hosting/IRCOp services. Charging per-seat to enterprise seems lik…

> 1.) There's really not enough innovation or a big enough TAM (considering competitors) to drive a unicorn valuation

TAM includes competitors.

Re: Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

#139

Post by techslave »

gamblor956 wrote: post #89
lvh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you used Teams? I've had to once, to talk to people and Microsoft, and it was _hilariously_ bad. I don't know anyone who uses it in earnest, and I know people who have used Google Chat. (I do most of the sales calls for Latacora, which feels like a decent representative sample of startups, and I think all but one, maybe two, of the companies we have ever spoken with used Slack. Order of magnitude a percent.)

My company tried slack, Hangouts, and teams. We're standardizing on teams because it's the easiest for non-technical users to understand and use.

que? how can one not understand slack? it couldn’t be simpler.

Re: Slack’s Shares Plunge After It Predicts a Larger Loss

#140

Post by chimi »

siruncledrew wrote: post #86
mattmanser wrote: post #10

Stewart Butterfield, Slack’s chief executive, said in an interview that it would take time for the market to understand his company since it had created a new category of software, unlike soda or cars We've had public business software companies for decades, they all created a new "category" of software, why does he think his is something new? Fundamentally speaking, how is Slack any different to the first email prog…

That sounds like a cop-out answer from the CEO to be honest. Slack isn't a confusing novelty the market has never seen; foundations of Slack have existed for quite some time (eg. using AIM with chatbots 15 years ago as a kid). It's not the market's fault Slack's revenue/sales expectations don't match their goals. That's entirely on Slack to either do a better job or be more realistic with their 'ceiling'.

I remember a quote that said basically, "If your product is ahead of its time, your marketing isn't good enough."
Post reply on HN