561–570 of 659 posts
The entire concept of a single chat service with a single UI is bogus. Some sort of mass delusion going on such that everyone nods their head every time one of these mono-services becomes popular. Protocols. Interoperability. Federation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matrix is doing pretty well (although I might be biased, being project lead). For instance, the entirety of the German military announced moving over to Matrix using a fork of Element a few days ago: https://sifted.eu/articles/european-armies-matrix/ , and there are several other (very) major governments beyond France & Germany who are switching to Matrix in order to get end-to-end-encrypted interoperable comms that…
Just out of curiosity: the press releases I've seen about these big government players switching to Matrix generally mention that they're using a customized client of some sort. That's understandable, but what I want to know is: Have they also customized the underlying protocol by which their homeservers communicate? The reason I ask is that it seems to me (as an entirely uneducated outsider) that if they're using th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm imagining a meeting a few years back, at Google: "Ok, you know our motto, 'Don't be Evil.'?" Heads nod. "What if ... what if ... what if we simplify that?" "How so?" "Just cut off the first word, 'Be Evil.' Simple, elegant." "I like it!" ---- Jokes aside, I think Google does a pretty good job of keeping the major products steady. Our little cohort on HN isn't a great sample for determining what "major" is.
Seems to me that either "Hangouts" (or whatever it's been most recently renamed to) is "major," and so many might argue it proves you false regarding "steady," OR it's not major, and discord would thus not be major and likewise not be kept "steady".
I'm somewhat surprised that Amazon didn't end up acquiring Slack, considering that the major thing they are missing compared to Microsoft is productivity tools. If they had purchased Dropbox and Slack they could've gotten a foothold rather quickly and slowed down one of Microsoft's major selling points (you already use Office, why not Azure?). Discord could be another interesting company in the chat space, as I'm sur…
I think Salesforce compares itself to Microsoft and sees its ambitions to enter ERP, CRM and BI markets and they already have a collaboration platform with Teams, for better or for worse.
I'm somewhat surprised that Amazon didn't end up acquiring Slack, considering that the major thing they are missing compared to Microsoft is productivity tools. If they had purchased Dropbox and Slack they could've gotten a foothold rather quickly and slowed down one of Microsoft's major selling points (you already use Office, why not Azure?). Discord could be another interesting company in the chat space, as I'm sur…
> if you already use Office, why not Azure? My gut reasoning is that cloud infrastructure is not the same product as office productivity and the two use cases are not the same, the purchasing decisions aren't made by the same people (except at scale, I guess, I'll concede that), and the boots on the ground building shit in the cloud take the path of least resistance where that logic would never apply. I don't really…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't read the details but an earlier message said "70x revenue". It is hard to think of a reason not to sell at that multiple.
Slack is valued higher than Kroger, which runs 2,700+ grocery stores in the United Stages. Apple and Sweden have about the same valuation right now. Apple is worth 30% more than Saudi Arabia.
Apple is also growing faster than Sweden’s economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some decent points. 80% is good to see. The problem is I don't see anyway companies drop Microsoft. Everyone already has teams or chat for free, are they going to pay for slack now? Assuming slack moves to the same model, buy the salesforce suite and get slack, how much added value is slack really providing? Will companies be willing to pay more now that slack is included even though they already have chat apps? I'm…
Teams is the new Skype > everyone has Teams for free Prevalent sentiment at my workplace: Teams integrates well for outlook meetings, but it‘s a CPU hog, has crappy chat UI. It paralyzes work to the extent, that I only prefer to use Slack. Or zoom for bigger video calls.
- Zoom for large team meeting
- Slack for collaboration between our teams
- Skype for upper management meetings who are still only know Skype
- Teams is free with office subscription and our company has been pushing everyone to use it instead of using slack but everyone hates Teams. Terrible UI and slow
I'm somewhat surprised that Amazon didn't end up acquiring Slack, considering that the major thing they are missing compared to Microsoft is productivity tools. If they had purchased Dropbox and Slack they could've gotten a foothold rather quickly and slowed down one of Microsoft's major selling points (you already use Office, why not Azure?). Discord could be another interesting company in the chat space, as I'm sur…
They'd have to acquire so much more - it's AD, Office and Exchange that keep Microsoft embedded in the enterprise. Hosted AD on Azure and Office 365 are _so good_ that nobody is coming close, not even Google.
While I think an MS environment can be a boon to enterprises, I think the MS cloud is very lacking, especially on performance.
Maybe because I am located in Europe, but it is not fun to work with.
We produce hardware and in dire cases we can do that with the pen and paper office solutions as long as our basic ERP solutions are working.
It would be no problem to use Linux and Libre office, it wouldn't affect productivity at all.
MS has good long term support but their cloud is certainly an exception to that. Not yet sure if good or bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You nailed it, Google product managers, specially in Cloud lack the Enterprise expertise. They need to get that a company with IT staff already went through updating NT to Windows 2000 and then 2008 and deploying Linux and Active Directory and Exchange 5.5, 2k..etc...many MS products which were de facto for any large Company, if you can't integrate with it you will never have a solid footstep into the Enterprise worl…
My large disappointment with Google's Cloud Platform offering was lack of commitment to parity features. I am sorry but the concept of "Beta release level" is a complete misfire/mismatch for what an enterprise needs. For example, you cannot, on one hand, advertise that you have a competitive feature (Google Functions competing with AWS Lambda), but then, on the other hand, turn around and label it beta and basically…
Flow, Teams, Lists, Planner, Sway, Stream, Forms, Kaizala...
Sorry, but these aren't battle tested enterprise apps at all. Could as well pull random apps from the Google store.
Whenever something new releases the first reaction already is "not again"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused by your argument. Beta is the stage before GA: if it's GA, it's not Beta by definition. This is all obsolete anyway, since GCP has announced they're moving to two stages: Preview or GA. That's it. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud-gets...
Thank god they've changed that. Preview or GA is much harder line, where you can't hide behind a beta label for cycles on end. You can see the language in that release "give your business the confidence." My point was that features were being advertised as essentially GA that were not actually GA. When evaluating the Google Cloud Platform sans-beta features, I was suddenly looking at a much more barren offering, in c…