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

Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

sacra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#101

Post by freeone3000 »

Throwaway1771 wrote: post #92
an_opabinia wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real reason email has problems is that it intermingles messages from real human beings and ones from computers, in a way that Facebook messenger and Twitter to a lesser extent do not. It’s a little puzzling to me why Gmail does not simply separate machine generated from human originated email.

This is what their Promotions tab intends to do.

I've had fewer and fewer emails end up in Promotions. Apparently the initial settings were far too effective, so they had to be turned down in order for promotional emails to actually see eyeballs.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#102

Post by timdaub »

All these companies trying to innovate on email by making user interface tweaks should really re-adjust their priorities.

Email at its core is a protocol. That's great. But we haven't achieved widespread encryption within the network (e.g. gmail reads everyone's emails).

That's the user experience problem that needs solving. Everything else is just adding complexity to something that works well anyways.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#103

Post by utdiscant »

timdaub wrote: post #102

All these companies trying to innovate on email by making user interface tweaks should really re-adjust their priorities. Email at its core is a protocol. That's great. But we haven't achieved widespread encryption within the network (e.g. gmail reads everyone's emails). That's the user experience problem that needs solving. Everything else is just adding complexity to something that works well anyways.

I am a Front user, and I am happily paying for the features on top of the email protocol delivered by Front. I am on the other hand not willing to spend money on better encryption. So while this might seem like the important problem to solve, I am pretty confident the market is telling a different story.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#104

Post by axegon_ »

timdaub wrote: post #102

All these companies trying to innovate on email by making user interface tweaks should really re-adjust their priorities. Email at its core is a protocol. That's great. But we haven't achieved widespread encryption within the network (e.g. gmail reads everyone's emails). That's the user experience problem that needs solving. Everything else is just adding complexity to something that works well anyways.

> All these companies trying to innovate on email by making user interface tweaks should really re-adjust their priorities.

My thoughts exactly. Some of us remember Google's attempt ~10 years ago with Google Wave(I think that's what they called it) which had the exact same concept. Needless to say it failed miserably. Good idea in principle but it tried to solve a problem people didn't have. And even with the WFH shift due to the pandemic, I'd still argue that it's a problem few people have.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#105

Post by timdaub »

axegon_ wrote: post #104
timdaub wrote: post #102

All these companies trying to innovate on email by making user interface tweaks should really re-adjust their priorities. Email at its core is a protocol. That's great. But we haven't achieved widespread encryption within the network (e.g. gmail reads everyone's emails). That's the user experience problem that needs solving. Everything else is just adding complexity to something that works well anyways.

> All these companies trying to innovate on email by making user interface tweaks should really re-adjust their priorities. My thoughts exactly. Some of us remember Google's attempt ~10 years ago with Google Wave(I think that's what they called it) which had the exact same concept. Needless to say it failed miserably. Good idea in principle but it tried to solve a problem people didn't have. And even with the WFH shi…

Also what I don't get is why companies are entering this uphill battle anyways. It's like trying to inovate on chairs, just because someone fell down once. But you can't fundamentally change the nature of chairs anymore. We've all agreed that they're useful. Doesn't mean that you can't invent a new type of chair!

Email as a tool is mature and well working. Nobody denies that there could be more useful tooks when colaborating online than email. But upgrading and hence replacing or taking away email makes no sense.

Why not develop something on the side if you're not interested in investing in protocol development.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#106

Post by Throwaway1771 »

fouc wrote: post #39
booleandilemma wrote: post #20

Can people still passive-aggressively cc my boss on emails to me when they want me to drop everything to work on their special issue?

You can get back at them by cc'ing their boss when you respond. ;) FWIW, I'll often cc my own boss when reaching out to someone in a different team, as I figure he can help with any coordination required. Hopefully that doesn't come off as passive aggressive but I guess it really depends.

Use bcc to avoid that problem.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#107

Post by timdaub »

utdiscant wrote: post #103
timdaub wrote: post #102

All these companies trying to innovate on email by making user interface tweaks should really re-adjust their priorities. Email at its core is a protocol. That's great. But we haven't achieved widespread encryption within the network (e.g. gmail reads everyone's emails). That's the user experience problem that needs solving. Everything else is just adding complexity to something that works well anyways.

I am a Front user, and I am happily paying for the features on top of the email protocol delivered by Front. I am on the other hand not willing to spend money on better encryption. So while this might seem like the important problem to solve, I am pretty confident the market is telling a different story.

I think you're right that the market will tell another story.

It's because as a person that makes decisions like a VC or CEO, it's easy to say yes to an integration with a company like Slack or Front, as the upcoming productivity increase of 1% may be directly atteibuted to it.

However, it's a shortsighted and unsustainable way of making business as Slack gets replaced by Front and Feont gets replaced by some post-front company.

If, in theory, they all focused on solving a human-rights issue like digital privacy, so many more people in markets could be permantently helped with.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#108

Post by swyx »

martinesko36 wrote: post #80
mfkp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are still launching with iOS/Mac only? Very Silicon Valley of you. Ignoring Windows and Android is just silly these days.

I don't really like Silicon Valley's mentality either, but no need for judgment. I totally feel you, and for us as a very small company we had the choice of either a) building a great native iOS/Mac app or b) Electron that runs everywhere but is ultimately a poor experience. We want to build a sustainable business not fueled by VC money, so our bandwidth is very limited. We decided to go the native route and work wit…

I mean I also question the assumption that electron will lead to a poor experience. I'm sure you know the examples everyone cites.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#109

Post by ryan29 »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #97
ryan29 wrote: post #46

> Front is like Slack for your email, except instead of creating another distracting, noisy, always-on tool, Front allows users to spin up ephemeral chats within email threads themselves. That's the exact opposite of what I'd want. Most small businesses have the same email problem that I always feel like I do. Too many requests come in via email and it's hard to track, discuss, resolve, and (at a later date) referenc…

I'm an old guy now but this just sounds like a standard ticket system. What's the big deal?

Maybe ticketing systems have gotten better, but I've never used one where I didn't feel like I was "spending time" dealing with the ticket system. As of right now, I end up with discussions spread across email, SMS, phone, and an issue tracking system (Redmine).

I think the main reason that happens is that I get delegated work and it often starts via email; "Please deal with this.", "Can we do this?", etc.. Based on my experience, that type of delegation is common for owner operated small businesses. Most of those small business owners don't want to create a ticket, assign it, set a due date, and track it when they're used to something as efficient as forwarding an email and expecting the recipient to understand the implied "do this" that comes along with it.

Plus, a forwarded email saying "Can we do this?" doesn't make sense as a ticket when sometimes the answer is going to be a 15 second "No." Other times it might be "Yes, but..." after 30 minutes of research and additional conversation. That warrants some type of tracking or ticket because you're going to need that info if it turns into a billable job.

So as the delegate, I want to be able to decide an existing thread of communication warrants conversion to a trackable conversation or issue. In addition to that, I want to be able to take future out-of-band communication and move it in-band by associating it with an existing conversation, ticket, topic, or whatever you want to call it. For example, if a customer emails someone with extra info or questions, it would be useful to forward the whole thread into an existing Teams Channel.

I mostly deal with small businesses and very often it's the owner interacting with a customer and delegating to employees via whatever means is appropriate. It usually doesn't make sense for the business owner to manage a ticket tracking system because that's extra work they don't want to / can't waste time on. It makes way more sense for the delegate to manage tasks / communication instead of the delegator IMO.

I've looked at Trello, Asana, Basecamp, etc. and I'm always left with the feeling "now you're going to have 2 jobs." They're designed for 100% buy-in, someone has to be the person that manages that stuff, and any out-of-band communication is a pain to bring in-band so you spend your time copying conversations into the system.

Re: Front: The $1.3B Startup Slackifying Email

#110

Post by swyx »

@dang it's clear many people are responding negatively to "slackifying email". it's clearly designed to ride the slack acquisition clickbait wave and detracts from the conversation. suggest "transforming team email" instead.
Post reply on HN