Live data from Hacker News

Slack S-1

sec.gov

461–469 of 469 posts

Re: Slack S-1

#461
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is hot, and people would stuff money in a hole in the ground right now if you promised a possible 5x return. That will change soon enough. I think these unicorns may know this and may have decided their time to raise money publicly is now, before a market crash. Not saying the market is about to crash, but it's certainly volatile.

Software having basically zero marginal cost is a game changer. There's a reason why the big tech companies are the belle of the ball right now, they all print money, and they're still growing. Some things are worth the risk for that kind of payout.

> basically zero marginal cost

If only. Their COGS may be low, but marketing expenses and R&D are 2/3 of slack's expenses. Also, cloud gets very pricey at scale.

Re: Slack S-1

#462
post #315
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your point still stands but some of that S&M can never be cut because of churn and is highly susceptible to interference from competitors. Slack doesn't have that much lock-in and a lot of people have their sights on that market -- "Cheaper than Slack and bundled with Office365/G Suite" is an extremely tempting offer.

Maybe, so far I've been in a few situations where we didn't go with Slack...only to go back to Slack. Part of the lock-in is their brilliant multi-org client. I can easily go back-and-forth between my company, a contract's IM, an alumni group of people in my last job and a group of local artists that like to talk to each other. Hell I've thought about luring most of my close friends from Facebook onto Slack. Their AP…

> Part of the lock-in is their brilliant multi-org client

While not quite as fully-featured as Slack, Keybase offers this. I'm a member of multiple orgs and seamlessly change between conversations (both group and 1-on-1).

Re: Slack S-1

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, cloud is still better for many. Managing datacenters at scale is hard. It also takes time to build up capabilities in house, while cost of delay is usually far greater than cost efficiencies wrung out of infrastructure. Cloud is often a euphemism for “supported hosted software that happens to come with hardware”. Not that different from Dreamhost managing PHP for you , just richer and higher scale. Why bui…

Thanks for the insight. Why build a cheaper internal capability over 6 months when I can have a slightly more expensive service NOW that I don’t have to worry about? If it really is just slightly more expensive, that seems like it would be a good investment for many businesses. I was just curious because this isn't a field I've been working in directly for a while. Last time I looked, but that was several years ago,…

It comes down to cost/benefit of delay on actions with their own window of opportunity and rates of return. If I delay taking actions because I’m waiting for IT services, that’s a real opportunity cost that should be weighed against the higher unit cost of cloud services. It does me little good if I have all this cost effective hardware and software managed internally but it still takes a week/month/ More for a developer to get an extra 5 TB and 100 CPU cores, or to get a firewall rule opened, or to get a new subnet created, or a new DNS zone.

Procuring gear, hiring a team, contracting connectivity, testing, integrating, scaling, etc, takes months. It also presumes you’ll attract, hire and be able to fund management that understands modern processes and can get things done in a timely, quality fashion. Even the best in the business are 50/50 at getting this right, so there will be growing pains. Whereas a top 5 cloud provider almost always has world class practices and processes behind their services and are a credit card transaction away. Much less capital commitment, much less time commitment.

Put another way, why prematurely optimize when you don’t necessarily know what you need long term ? Startups or even new products at large companies need to focus on product/market fit and responsiveness. Their processes and structures should be more like a tent city with gradually paved cowpaths than a planned city.

In the case of a venture funded startup, time is more valuable than capital. In the case of a large enterprise, it depends - sometimes time is more valuable, sometimes operating cost needs to be squeezed. Cloud of all forms (private, public) has become very lucrative in enterprise because of the slow pace and intransigence of IT teams that were assembled in an era where technical and software services could suck and take years to solidify. These days software needs to suck a lot less, and quickly - customers are demanding it. Cloud is not mainly about where you do your computing, it’s about how you do it: on demand, fungible resources, granular billing, API-driven access. I’m sure I can get the costs down if I own all the gear and have a flexibly contracted network, but I still need to ensure I have the automation, processes, and practices that meet the business need for velocity. I can’t risk hiring a team that might put up a ticketing system and manage every request by Excel spreadsheet if they don’t know better.

Building good software means providing developers with infrastructure and tools they need to act quickly with safety, and most importantly, giving them the ability to change their minds without a major cost/capital hit. Cloud (or, as I say above, on demand, fungible infrastructure and rented software) is a major path (but not the only) to get there.

Re: Slack S-1

#464

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 not sure... in the old school enterprise Microsoft might be crushing them long term with O365 bundling.

Re: Slack S-1

#465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Dude, why don't you just not invest and leave the rest of us to lose our money? If I want to capitalize someone I should be allowed to. The accredited investor thing is already bad enough.

Because there is large a social cost with allowing regular people and retirement investment funds to waste money in scams. I'm not saying that Slack IPO is a scam. I'm saying that if a majority of public companies cannot turn a profit ever then nobody will ever be able to retire, except the Madoffs that we didn't catch.

Re: Slack S-1

#466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 a company is profitable, but there is a benefit to spending more money to grow faster, why wouldn't that company spend that profit to grow? If you believe growing the business is a good use of investor money, then wouldn't you also believe it is a good use of your profit?

It makes sense, but people do all sorts of things for many reasons or no reason.

New growth would have to be sustainable "indefinitely" or they'd have to worry about replacing it. In addition, even more revenue growth is then required to maintain the higher market cap.

Re: Slack S-1

#467
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally did your team's productivity or quality of work suffer to a large extent after moving to Teams?

I would guess that the choice of chat tool has almost no impact on productivity or quality.

That is mostly my thought as well, meaning that the parent's boss made the right move in saving money with no loss in productivity.

Re: Slack S-1

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, why don't you just not invest and leave the rest of us to lose our money? If I want to capitalize someone I should be allowed to. The accredited investor thing is already bad enough.

Because there is large a social cost with allowing regular people and retirement investment funds to waste money in scams. I'm not saying that Slack IPO is a scam. I'm saying that if a majority of public companies cannot turn a profit ever then nobody will ever be able to retire, except the Madoffs that we didn't catch.

The Madoff scam has nothing to do with public companies being unable to turn a profit though.

Re: Slack S-1

#469
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbnb is profitable. It has been since second half of 2016. Or at least close enough to profitable depending on the metrics you want to account for. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/airbnb-made-its-first-prof... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/airbnb-sa...

Ah thanks! I always did get the impression it was a more viable business than Lyft or Uber, but wasn't aware it was becoming profitable.

Haha yep. Cheers!
Post reply on HN