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

91–100 of 469 posts

Re: Slack S-1

#91

Post by mritchie712 »

soared wrote: post #74
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.

What do you use for alerts? We've been working on Slack as a destination for SeekWell (https://seekwell.io/).

Basically you can write SQL and if there are results, we'll send a message to Slack. Same works for Python, including plots / images.

Re: Slack S-1

#92

Post by dymk »

airstrike wrote: post #71
graetzer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Slack is way more than IRC. Literally dozens of nontrivial features more.

Re: Slack S-1

#93

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

> I bet people predicting the downturn are also still heavily invested in stocks.

As they should be, unless they plan to retire in the near future. Attempting to time the market is generally folly.

Re: Slack S-1

#94

Post by will_brown »

raesene9 wrote: post #59
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…

I was with you on the first part, in other industries such a loss making company might have difficulties going public. But lost you on the second part. It's not for the SEC (in my opinion) to police who can and can't go private in terms of how their busines is doing. That's for investors to assess when deciding whether, or not, to buy shares. The SEC's concerns should (again IMO) focus on whether the company seeking…

>That's for investors to assess when deciding whether, or not, to buy shares.

Yes for a public company...but it’s the SECs job to regulate who can have public offerings to begin with.

As I’ve iterated in the thread it’s not legal to publicly offer unregistered private stock to non-accredited investors and let them choose to invest or not. The SEC protects investors and our markets.

Re: Slack S-1

#95

Post by snypox »

arkitaip wrote: post #19
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)

I think we're already seeing a backlash against the always multitasking, loss of focus culture that Slack has become the poster child for in the SASS space. Just like Facebook or Twitter, Slack is engineered for constant dopamine-fueled engagement, which quickly turns it into a bad and ultimately unproductive habit for companies that use it. I am already seeing competitors like Level use Slack as a warning example an…

Weird opinion. I only know 1 colleague of mine who gets distracted by chat. For me, and for most people an efficient team collaboration tool (Slack) is a game changer though.

Re: Slack S-1

#96

Post by drb91 »

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…

If you’re expecting Slack to meet your needs as an end user, it’s never going to happen.

Re: Slack S-1

#97

Post by drb91 »

noxToken wrote: post #73
xfitm3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I can’t speak for the others but Jabber allows you control of the client.

The notification settings in chat apps for enterprise are, as a rule, terrible.

Re: Slack S-1

#98

Post by mooreds »

maxxxxx wrote: post #89
est31 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that products like Slack, Uber, Airbnb, etc. all could have basically everyone as their customer. These companies influence the daily lives of millions of people, with comparatively few employees, thanks to the scaling skills of technology. That's why they are valued so high and are still growing. Sure, they might be overvalued and one day the bubble can burst, but neither is it just a ponzi scheme, ther…

They also don’t have very high barriers to entry for competitors. Replacing SAP is really hard after it has been established in a company. On the other hand replacing Slack is really easy. Same for Uber. Customers and drivers can jump ship anytime.

It depends on how you use slack. (I agree that Uber is pretty easy.)

If slack becomes an email replacement (instead of an ephemeral IM client), and a repository for historical knowledge, then it becomes very difficult to replace. In the workplaces where I have used slack, it definitely starts to take on that role (links to discussions are placed in tickets and documents, for example).

Re: Slack S-1

#99

Post by outside1234 »

cupofjoakim wrote: post #41
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.

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.

I guarantee you that Microsoft has not lost money on Teams at the same growth rate. Why does Slack get a pass for that?

Re: Slack S-1

#100

Post by megous »

screye wrote: post #54
polote wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But could also be the thing that will make the market crash nobody knows

I can see that happening. Loss making unicorns go public -> investor pressure builds to reach profitability -> none of them can deliver on promises in the short term -> public does not want to own these stocks anymore -> causes a frantic selling spree -> market crashes.

Why would the market crash, and not just these few bad comapanies? What's systemic about the overhyped IRC clone or just another taxi service getting their fair value judged by public markets, that would cause a market crash?
Post reply on HN