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

Slack S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 469 posts

Re: Slack S-1

#291

Post by acchow »

linuxftw wrote: post #197
scrollaway wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, 10000 more of those boxes and you can rebuild slack "in a weekend for $35k/month". Don't mind the lawsuits when you lose your customer data and forgot to pay for backups for "cost optimization" reasons. Don't mind the complaints when your uptime is barely one-nine. Don't mind the customer cancellations when your 1000-user VPS doesn't actually scale to 20k concurrents. And don't mind the HN snark when you releas…

I think you're being overly negative. I think you can do a lot with a little. Does a chat app need to be fully searchable? I don't think so. Does it need backups? I don't think so. These are features users could opt-in for if it was that important to them. Could be something simple as sending encrypted nightly diffs to an email address. The whole world doesn't need to be over engineered to have a useful product.

> Does a chat app need to be fully searchable?

Absolutely, yes. There is a ton of tribal knowledge contained in chat history.

Re: Slack S-1

#292

Post by lispm »

toasterlovin wrote: post #286
will_brown wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any other industry where a company can go public having lost $500,000,000 over the last 3 years? I get it their “market share” is increasing every year and the loses are staying the same...and even that is not the full picture of a path to profit. But if the company could turn a profit, then why not do it privately, show that and then go public? My guess like Uber and Lyft...they can’t turn a profit, and for…

Slack has a huge opportunity in front of them (become the messaging platform for every business that exists). They’re investing a lot of money to acquire all of that business (salespeople, travel, etc.). That is literally one of the main purposes of capital and access to capital is why you would take a company public. And, specifically re: Slack. Unlike, say, Uber or Lyft, Slack has customers who have demonstrated th…

> Slack has a huge opportunity in front of them (become the messaging platform for every business that exists).

How about: being bought by Microsoft.

Re: Slack S-1

#293

Post by omarchowdhury »

huac wrote: post #250
Naga wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that Slack's business model is that different from other companies, from a marketing perspective. Sure, they acquired you as a customer in 2014 and don't need to spend anymore on marketing, but other companies spend huge amounts for marketing in the first few years and then spend less over time (think: you picked a detergent brand and keep using it without further marketing, for example). I actually thi…

i don't have a subscription to laundry detergent, nothing stops me from buying a different brand in 6 months, whereas slack has contracts with my company, and has switching costs (we'd lose our message history).

> (we'd lose our message history).

You can't export your data from Slack?

Re: Slack S-1

#295

Post by baby »

toasterlovin wrote: post #286
will_brown wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any other industry where a company can go public having lost $500,000,000 over the last 3 years? I get it their “market share” is increasing every year and the loses are staying the same...and even that is not the full picture of a path to profit. But if the company could turn a profit, then why not do it privately, show that and then go public? My guess like Uber and Lyft...they can’t turn a profit, and for…

Slack has a huge opportunity in front of them (become the messaging platform for every business that exists). They’re investing a lot of money to acquire all of that business (salespeople, travel, etc.). That is literally one of the main purposes of capital and access to capital is why you would take a company public. And, specifically re: Slack. Unlike, say, Uber or Lyft, Slack has customers who have demonstrated th…

I’m pretty sure people are getting more and more used to uber, ditching their car or not looking to get a driver license. It is becoming an essential part of our lives and I use it way more today compared to years ago when rides used to cost close to 0$ Due to their promotions or agressive pricing.

Re: Slack S-1

#296

Post by baccheion »

will_brown wrote: post #287
baccheion wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPOs were historically done by unprofitable companies to raise funds. It's like seeking out VCs for another round of funding, but it's instead the public. Now, it's usually done to give insiders an exit. What future growth would there be for buyers if the company went public already at its peak?

>What future growth would there be for buyers if the company went public already at its peak? I never said anything about peak. I said profit. Certainly a company making profit may want to go public to finance growth to make more profit (ie peak). IPOs/stock companies were not created for companies that were unprofitable.

If growth rate continues as they project, buyers get a larger future bump/multiplier.

What makes you say that? Proof? It was historically used to raise more funding to fuel growth, a function VCs can now fill (ie, then it would be likely to have a VC provide the larger sums required). Though VCs can fill such a gap, IPOs give insiders an exit.

Re: Slack S-1

#297

Post by toasterlovin »

lispm wrote: post #292
toasterlovin wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slack has a huge opportunity in front of them (become the messaging platform for every business that exists). They’re investing a lot of money to acquire all of that business (salespeople, travel, etc.). That is literally one of the main purposes of capital and access to capital is why you would take a company public. And, specifically re: Slack. Unlike, say, Uber or Lyft, Slack has customers who have demonstrated th…

> Slack has a huge opportunity in front of them (become the messaging platform for every business that exists). How about: being bought by Microsoft.

Yeah, I actually think that’s a likely eventual outcome. I would be shocked if they haven’t already had discussions to that effect. It seems like a natural fit to me.

Re: Slack S-1

#298

Post by evrydayhustling »

will_brown wrote: post #260
evrydayhustling wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put another way, you're suggesting that "public investors shouldn't have access to loss making companies, regardless of growth". That would eliminate not just tech IPOs, but a majority of publicly traded companies period . Only 2700 (out of about 7500) currently make the cut: https://finviz.com/screener.ashx?v=111&f=fa_netmargin_pos&ft... Like it or not, tolerating losses (preferably to accomplish growth!) has become…

>you're suggesting that "public investors shouldn't have access to loss making companies, regardless of growth". No that’s not what I’m saying...there is a difference between a company that is registering for an IPO and an existing publicly traded company. And let’s not pretend Tech companies IPOing at losses is somehow protection to small investors...I don’t see anyone clamoring to allow these small investor be allo…

Ok, then why is loss-making more acceptable (safer for small investors) in a formerly profitable company than it is for a not-yet-profitable company?

And as others have pointed out you are exactly wrong about efforts to make public investment available earlier. Besides founders who would love to have more fundraising options, there is plenty of evidence and outcry that small investors are not getting access to economic growth: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/private...

Re: Slack S-1

#299

Post by dcosson »

ska wrote: post #285
jdavis703 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people who are wealthy enough to be accredited investors. However I have way more financial literacy than some of these so-called accredited investors. That I’m forbidden from buying and selling certain assets only because I’m not rich enough (yet) really goes against the whole pull yourself up by your own bootstraps ideology.

The pull yourself up by your bootstraps stuff isn't the issue here, it's risk management. Accreditation is not in place to define who is informed and smart enough to make the investments, it is defining who can afford to take the loss, and who at least has the resources to do it properly.

There are lots of other ways for people with limited money to lose it, and there always will be. Casinos, lottery tickets, credit card debt, frivolous purchases, etc.

I can’t think of any reasonable argument why allowing a free-thinking adult to, say, put a bit of savings into a friend or relative’s new startup is so much worse than the rest of these that it needs to be illegal.

Re: Slack S-1

#300

Post by toasterlovin »

baby wrote: post #295
toasterlovin wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slack has a huge opportunity in front of them (become the messaging platform for every business that exists). They’re investing a lot of money to acquire all of that business (salespeople, travel, etc.). That is literally one of the main purposes of capital and access to capital is why you would take a company public. And, specifically re: Slack. Unlike, say, Uber or Lyft, Slack has customers who have demonstrated th…

I’m pretty sure people are getting more and more used to uber, ditching their car or not looking to get a driver license. It is becoming an essential part of our lives and I use it way more today compared to years ago when rides used to cost close to 0$ Due to their promotions or agressive pricing.

Most people are extremely constrained by costs. Take out the VC money and Uber is a taxi company that is easier to use. Difficulty of use is part of the reason people didn’t use taxis all that much. But a huge part of the reason is that taxis are really, really expensive.
Post reply on HN