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

71–80 of 469 posts

Re: Slack S-1

#71

Post by airstrike »

graetzer wrote: post #23
douglasfshearer wrote: post #12

Slack has a 5-year, $50M/year minimum commitment with AWS. From the document: > In April 2018, the Company executed an amendment to its existing agreement with Amazon Web Services (“AWS”). The amended agreement was effective as of May 1, 2018 and continues through July 31, 2023. The Company has minimum annual commitments of $50.0 million each year of the agreement term for a total minimum commitment of $250.0 million…

thats still only half as much as Lyfts $100M/year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19282624

Lyft is arguably solving a much harder problem than essentially IRC

Re: Slack S-1

#72

Post by ghaff »

will_brown wrote: post #57
wbl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s not the point/issue though. The markets are regulated to protect consumers/investors...private companies can’t just have unregistered public offerings to non accredited investors...so it’s not just “up to you to assess the investments” there are rules and nothing is stopping additional rules to not permit registration of a public offering when the company is operating at a $150,000,000.00 annual loss or more t…

It's not an unreasonable position. To the annoyance of many here, for example, there are investments that are limited to high net worth individuals. It's not that big of a stretch to imagine additional regulations (whether from the SEC, the major exchanges, or a combination thereof) on which companies are allowed to go public.

Re: Slack S-1

#73

Post by noxToken »

xfitm3 wrote: post #22
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…

Slack is hostile towards users. They aggressively push a narrative that if Slack is annoying - its a management problem.

How is Slack any different than any other instant messaging application? Hangouts, Jabber, Discord, Rocket Chat, and even WebEx or GoToMeeting - you can disable notifications, completely ignore, or even sign out of all of these applications.

I'm not saying that Slack are the good guys, but if your managers are forcing you to have all notifications on at all times and using @channel for every message, then it really is your management.

Re: Slack S-1

#74

Post by soared »

LandR wrote: post #53

I'm staggered that there are 575 companies paying slack $100k / year. I don't even have anything against slack but what is possibly worth $100k a year from a comms software?

My company pays quite a bit for slack and an alerts integration. My company spends ~$500k/day in client’s money and so real-time alerts in slack easily pay for themselves.

Re: Slack S-1

#75

Post by derwiki »

ralala wrote: post #56
LandR wrote: post #53

I'm staggered that there are 575 companies paying slack $100k / year. I don't even have anything against slack but what is possibly worth $100k a year from a comms software?

Availability

Slack does a lot of things very well, but I've seen a surprising amount of downtime. YMMV of course.

Re: Slack S-1

#76

Post by nedwin »

LandR wrote: post #53

I'm staggered that there are 575 companies paying slack $100k / year. I don't even have anything against slack but what is possibly worth $100k a year from a comms software?

You would be amazed at the types of software large companies pay for >$100k a year to solve narrow business problems.

Re: Slack S-1

#77

Post by aiCeivi9 »

xfitm3 wrote: post #31
jasongill wrote: post #4

Congratulations to the Slack team; a great product that has generally become better over time. Let's hope that going public doesn't change them too much (although things like the new logo debacle don't inspire confidence at times)

Slack is a junk product.

It is good enough that it got cloned by Mattermost. No one recreates shitty software.

Re: Slack S-1

#78

Post by pwinnski »

LandR wrote: post #53

I'm staggered that there are 575 companies paying slack $100k / year. I don't even have anything against slack but what is possibly worth $100k a year from a comms software?

Until recently I worked for a company with more than 100k employees, and Slack was much preferred over the previous Microsoft-supplied chat service. I have no insider knowledge at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if that company paid that much.

Re: Slack S-1

#79

Post by paulgb »

your-nanny wrote: post #48
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.

I'm curious how it is better for research, if you don't mind elaborating?
Post reply on HN