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

Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 809 posts

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#241

Post by mbesto »

fiblye wrote: post #113
not_a_moth wrote: post #52

The obligatory "but they have massive losses", > For the fiscal year ending January 31, 2019, the company reported losses of $138.9 million on revenue of $400.6 million. That’s compared to a loss of $140.1 million on revenue of $220.5 million the year prior. [1] [1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/31/slack-first-quarter-financ... I don't understand valuations.

My question is where the hell is that money going? That money is all the cash flow in some entire minor industries. It’s the GDP of some minor lower/mid-economy nations’ cities. Their losses are equal to half the entire GDP of Palau. Maybe I’m detached. But I don’t understand the cash flow in chat apps today. It’s absolutely bizarre amounts of money for something that can and will easily be replaced in a few years, a…

> My question is where the hell is that money going?

S&M:

- Sales people aren't cheap

- Marketing tech isn't cheap

- Advertising isn't cheap (especially when your investors say "SPEND IT ALL AS FAST AS YOU CAN")

- Steaks/strippers with clients isn't cheap

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#242

Post by chime »

r32a_ wrote: post #78

Slack can eat into Zoom very easily. Massive room for growth

Zoom works perfectly every single time. I've managed to make Slack's audio call feature work only rarely. I wish Slack had decent shared whiteboard, screenshare, and audio/video conferencing but that is a hard problem and they are currently not able to deliver. Zoom does flawlessly.

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#243

Post by paxys »

colechristensen wrote: post #89
Spivak wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is MySQL just a frontend on a filesystem?

Remove the pejorative 'just' and the answer is an obvious uncontroversial yes. MySQL is a nicer alternative to managing really big CSV flat files on a filesystem. Facebook is an RSS, address book, message share. Etc.

Sure but if you keep following that analogy then nothing is worth anything

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#244

Post by megaremote »

tjpnz wrote: post #189

Just throwing out there but has Slack genuinely improved the work lives of anybody? I've used it for my past two jobs and have yet to find a way of using it that doesn't destroy my productivity or make me genuinely afraid of receiving a message and being thrown off what I was doing.

Oh, yes. 100%. I can't imagine how we would work in the last two major companies I worked at without it. Everyone is on slack, great place to ask simple questions, create a channel to discuss an issue, add images and video, and provide feedback when you are ready.

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#245

Post by paxys »

nwallin wrote: post #144
ddlutz wrote: post #21

So they are worth $1,600 per user? I don't understand how that is possible at all.

My company is in the middle of switching from Slack to Microsoft teams. The water cooler talk is that we're paying Slack $1000-$2500 per year per user. It sounds like their business model thus far is that of p2w mobile games. Nearly all of your users are minnows, but some are whales. I don't know if any of this is true. It doesn't really sound believable that we're paying that much, tbh.

Slack's paid plan is like $80/year/user. How on earth are you paying $2500?

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#246

Post by paxys »

durdleturtle wrote: post #4

I love the software, though this kind of feels like the Dot Com bubble all over again.

I don't think people who say this were even around at the time of the dotcom bubble. There were public companies adding "tech" to their names and seeing their values rise 10x in a day. THAT was a bubble.

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#247

Post by CameronBanga »

scarface74 wrote: post #171
Roritharr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their moat is sticky enough and they know it. They can decide what verticals they want to compete it, but their company mission to make business-communication more effective is still as open a field as it was when they were founded. They may have to acquire their Instagram equivalent some time in the future, but I can easily imagine that their Enterprise Customers are here to stay.

The enterprise customers are the least likely to stay. What happens when Microsoft Teams gets “good enough” and it’s already given away with the Office subscription that most enterprise customers have and it integrates with Microsoft’s other options. Look no further than YC darling Dropbox. For the same price you pay for Dropbox, you can get the entire Microsoft Office suite plus 6 TB of storage.

Teams shouldn’t be underestimated. It’s pretty great, and comes with a lot of great tools that no unicorn has found a way to replace.

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#248

Post by chii »

orhmeh09 wrote: post #102
shereadsthenews wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does anyone use the app instead of the site?

For me it’s a usability thing—I tend to lose track of SPA tabs, often by closing the window or not being able to differentiate them from content tabs. I do use web apps but I vastly prefer using my machine’s window manager and window buttons/lists.

I use a tool like applicationize (https://applicationize.me/) to make a chrome app for a site. It mimicks an app, but is running as a tab in chrome. Saves memory but gives the benefit of separate window and workspace management (I can tab to it, it can have icon etc).

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#249

Post by CameronBanga »

ColinWielga wrote: post #154
Spivak wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure they'll be able to compete against a worse but integrated solution like MS teams long term. No doubt it's worse but the bundle is cheaper with when you're already paying for Windows and Office. Same story with G Suite. MS and Google don't actually have to be better with their chat product, they just have to be usable and cheaper.

My company just switched from Slack to Teams. I think it is hard for cost conscious organizations with o365 to justify slack.

I use Teams in a very large org. Sometimes, the lack of integration and capability is a benefit. People don’t message me unless they actually need something.

Re: Slack Is Going Public at a $16B Valuation

#250

Post by nine_k »

scarface74 wrote: post #171
Roritharr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their moat is sticky enough and they know it. They can decide what verticals they want to compete it, but their company mission to make business-communication more effective is still as open a field as it was when they were founded. They may have to acquire their Instagram equivalent some time in the future, but I can easily imagine that their Enterprise Customers are here to stay.

The enterprise customers are the least likely to stay. What happens when Microsoft Teams gets “good enough” and it’s already given away with the Office subscription that most enterprise customers have and it integrates with Microsoft’s other options. Look no further than YC darling Dropbox. For the same price you pay for Dropbox, you can get the entire Microsoft Office suite plus 6 TB of storage.

One little detail: the MS offering should work adequately.

If Lync (Skype for Business) is any indication, building well-working enterprise messaging is hard. Unless cost-cutting is your central concern, you want your internal communication to use the best, least-friction tools. Here Slack has quite an advantage.

Post reply on HN