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

41–50 of 469 posts

Re: Slack S-1

#41

Post by cupofjoakim »

maxxxxx wrote: post #33
neom wrote: post #11

"Our revenue was $105.2 million, $220.5 million, and $400.6 million in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, representing annual growth of 110% and 82%, respectively. Our growth is global with international revenue representing 34%, 34%, and 36% of total revenue in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. We continue to invest in growing our business to capitalize on our market opportunity. As a re…

It’s still mind boggling that all these unicorns haven’t found a way to make money even after being in business for years and having a mature product. It’s a strange world.

Well, these guys do have a good way to make money. Enterprise contracts are worth their weight in gold. As you could see from the quote, their revenue has increased more than their losses - which mean that they are on their way to become profitable. Arguably they could be now, if they didn't invest in growth as much.

Re: Slack S-1

#42

Post by sinatra »

jfoster wrote: post #24
sinatra wrote: post #16

Great product! Still don’t know why they don’t give the user the option of disabling threaded conversations for self or for entire organization. People have been asking for it for years. Ref: https://twitter.com/slackhq/status/822064778269102080?lang=e... At least allow me as an individual user to see all messages sequentially without any threads. I am willing to do mental context switches. I prefer doing that to los…

I think threaded conversations become more important as an organisation's channels become increasingly noisy. Threaded conversations can partly alleviate that. They probably want to prevent organisations from disabling a feature that may assist with their scaling on slack.

The problem is that threads lead to missed messages. That’s a bigger problem than potential of noise. At least allow a user to decide if they want to see messages in threads or not.

Re: Slack S-1

#43

Post by sinatra »

raldi wrote: post #26
sinatra wrote: post #16

Great product! Still don’t know why they don’t give the user the option of disabling threaded conversations for self or for entire organization. People have been asking for it for years. Ref: https://twitter.com/slackhq/status/822064778269102080?lang=e... At least allow me as an individual user to see all messages sequentially without any threads. I am willing to do mental context switches. I prefer doing that to los…

They also don't give the option of disabling vowels.

That’s an unnecessarily hostile comment. I want to disable threads for myself so I don’t miss important messages. What’s your use case for disabling vowels? And where’s your list of people genuinely asking for disabling vowels for years?

Re: Slack S-1

#44

Post by btown »

icebraining wrote: post #34
btown wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obligatory “this may be boilerplate nowadays, but there is nothing traditional about unprofitable companies making public offerings” comment. Edit: I stand corrected. https://www.wsj.com/articles/red-ink-floods-ipo-market-15383... provides historical context that this is not a new phenomenon, though it is more common than ever.

They are already profitable. They're just warning it's possible they might become unprofitable. Just like any other company.

They have operated at a net loss for the past 3 years - this is simply untrue.

Re: Slack S-1

#45

Post by wbl »

will_brown wrote: post #35
neom wrote: post #11

"Our revenue was $105.2 million, $220.5 million, and $400.6 million in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, representing annual growth of 110% and 82%, respectively. Our growth is global with international revenue representing 34%, 34%, and 36% of total revenue in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. We continue to invest in growing our business to capitalize on our market opportunity. As a re…

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…

The SEC fundamentally believes it's ok to lose money investing. It's up to you to assess the investments and decide where to put your money.

Re: Slack S-1

#46

Post by TheAlchemist »

mertd wrote: post #29
fratlas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been seeing a lot of calls about this incoming downturn (especially HN), does anyone have any articles/analysis they can point me to? Would love to read up on the state of it.

No. The bull run could sustain for another 10 years or end tomorrow. I bet people predicting the downturn are also still heavily invested in stocks.

That's the nature of the market. However, it's still a very valuable to say 'market will be lower than today, by 30%, somewhere between today and 10 years'. The periods where this phrase were true throughout history are rather very rare - and I do belive it's quite true now.

Re: Slack S-1

#47

Post by sct202 »

amrrs wrote: post #2

Lyft, Uber, Zoom, Beyond Meat and now, Slack Is there any benefit of Public at this point of time? or Just a trend to grab as much as Wallet share from the average investor?

Seems like it wouldn't be a great idea to IPO at the same time as everyone else, since like there isn't unlimited money out there, but who knows.

Re: Slack S-1

#48

Post by your-nanny »

cozzyd wrote: post #38

Memory usage seems to mirror their revenue as well! I like slack, we use it on all the experiments I work on, but I'm seriously considering upgrading my workstation for the privilege of not restarting my slack tabs every day or so...

you might consider Mattermost instead, if in research setting. It has better support, imo, for researcher use cases, and you can host yourself.

Re: Slack S-1

#49

Post by dcosson »

will_brown wrote: post #35
neom wrote: post #11

"Our revenue was $105.2 million, $220.5 million, and $400.6 million in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, representing annual growth of 110% and 82%, respectively. Our growth is global with international revenue representing 34%, 34%, and 36% of total revenue in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. We continue to invest in growing our business to capitalize on our market opportunity. As a re…

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…

Don’t understand this take at all. The public is free to just not buy the stock if they don’t want.

You think the problem is that investors are leaving too much potential for growth on the table when companies IPO? They should wait even longer and keep more of that growth private?

Re: Slack S-1

#50

Post by nicolashahn »

paulddraper wrote: post #40
maxxxxx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s still mind boggling that all these unicorns haven’t found a way to make money even after being in business for years and having a mature product. It’s a strange world.

It's still mind boggling that all these unicorns haven't stopped growing after being in business for years and having a mature product. It's a strange world.

It's a testament to how much spare money is just floating around in the upper VC class.
Post reply on HN