711–720 of 809 posts
Is that high? Low? about right?
Well, it depends if Slack made $100 million in sales and is flat, or if it did $2B in sales and is doubling every year.
(I assume that it doesn't have earnings because its still growing and plowing all that money back into the business)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What advantages does Slack have over Zoom? Microsoft Teams seems to compete more with the latter than the former.
99% of value of Slack for our team is in the text-related features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not wrong :-). In fact, your second line is completely correct. However, Slack has lowered the standards for desktop software by being a really terrible piece of software. Which means that the professional in me wants to see a decent client before I'm happy. What's more worrying is that we are rapidly moving away from an Internet based on open standards and into walled gardens.
My personal take is that, as long as profit remains a guiding priority for a society, there will always be much greater incentive to create a new and successful walled garden than to share and contribute to open standards. This is made evident by countless technology firms and other industries.
Found the bug.
> there will always be much greater incentive to create a new and successful walled garden than to share and contribute to open standards
It's really a shame that most customers never learn and they keep accepting closed source/protocols.
While the world economy is quickly moving into endless vertical monopolies, history has shown that governments can sometimes wake up and restore competition.
Perhaps in 50 years using open standards will be encouraged e.g. by providing a tax discount
Well deserved. Their product-vision was clear, their execution focused on what mattered... and they didn't need to bend or break laws to succeed. It's easily my favorite unicorn of the past decade.
If governments weren't so concerned with party politics, infighting and staving off populist surges, we'd probably have a proper definition for a "gig economy" worker by now. A definition that would allow them to keep the flexibility that they appreciate so much, whilst still having proper worker protections for sick pay, holidays and all the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What advantages does Slack have over Zoom? Microsoft Teams seems to compete more with the latter than the former.
Zoom and Slack are very different products. 99% of value of Slack for our team is in the text-related features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those 50 largest customers are unlikely to move away within the next two years, and neither are most businesses. I can see someone worry about growth, but they're not going away in 2 years.
Two years ago, those 50 customers weren't using Slack at all. It will be just as easy for them to leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, Slack has lowered the standards for desktop software by being a really terrible piece of software. You need to explain a claim like that. On the face of it, the Slack UI works beautifully in Browser, Desktop and iOS clients. I'd quite like it to have code syntax highlighting. But really, what are you talking about?
>On the face of it, the Slack UI works beautifully in Browser, Desktop and iOS clients. It's not accessible. This alone destroys "beautifully". But even beyond that, it's just not a good citizen or experience wherever it is. It's deeply single-paned and hence single-tasked: you can't open a conversation in a tab or separate window. And switching between conversations/threads/groups on any platform is much harder than…
Firstly, lack of accessibility is lack of accessibility. Beauty is a distinct concept. Your comment reminds me of the sign on the Berkeley/Oakland border that reads "Animal rights are human rights". Both are highly desirable, but that does not make them synonymous or coextensive.
OK, It's never occurred to me that I wanted a conversation in a different window.
You use ⌘-k to switch channels. Partially drafted messages are retained. I think I prefer that to a mess of windows that I'd have to manage though of course I don't mean to impose my preference on you.
I have the desktop client open and it's using about 800MB memory between the main process and 3 helper processes. I agree it's a lot, but it seems 100% standard for modern applications. Everything seems to be built around the assumption that people have a $2000 laptop like rich westerners might. So I don't agree with it but I wouldn't single out Slack for criticism beyond any other modern consumer tech company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atlassian was already profitable weren’t they? There’s a disclaimer these unicorns put in their S1s - “we are not profitable and may never be” - Atlassian probably didn’t have to do that. That should count for something right?
That disclaimer is as old as dirt. I saw a company that sent public in 1960 had the same. Won't be surprised if Atlassian had the same.
"We may not be able to sustain our revenue growth rate or maintain profitability in the future."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1650372/000155837015...
>>> More than 88,000 Paid Customers, including more than 65 companies in the Fortune 100; and >>> We had 575 Paid Customers >$100,000 of ARR as of January 31, 2019, which accounted for approximately 40% of our revenue in fiscal year 2019. If my math is right, 40% of their revenue is concentrated in I also saw that this is a direct listing and not an IPO. Again, I can only see this as a risk, basically because no unde…
Most of the places I worked had 2 or 3 whales. 55 whales is actually pretty good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meet me. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Confluence is OKish. But Jira is absurdly bad. I'm talking about the UI for creating Issues and Epics etc. The front-end devs that wrote it simply didn't have the ability. The parser for entering markup such as preformatted code blocks just doesn't work a lot of the time. The newer "Visual mode" just doesn't work a lot of the time. It simply needs to switch over to mar…
Not that it really matters much, but a lot of the design issues you're highlighting are due to the age of the software and Atlassian's seeming commitment to not breaking backward compatibility. In particular, Jira predates Markdown, so the software adopted the text formatter of the day, which was textile[0]. This is where the `bq.` syntax comes from. Jira didn't invent it from whole cloth -- it was adopted because th…
bq. commitment to not breaking backward compatibility
Backward compatibility with what? People's brains? We're talking about markup language and rendering right, which is not an API consumed by machines.
bq. it's hardly the case that they hired a bunch of inept engineers.
So why is the new "Visual Mode" WYSIWYG text entry mode so terrible? And why that absurd "link" icon in the top right of the text entry widget?