[HN Gopher] Slack Price Increase beginning Sep 2022
___________________________________________________________________
Slack Price Increase beginning Sep 2022
Author : codegeek
Score : 59 points
Date : 2022-07-18 20:23 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (slack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (slack.com)
| bombcar wrote:
| > We're also simplifying plan limits. Instead of a 10,000-message
| limit and 5 GB of storage, we are giving full access to the past
| 90 days of message history and file storage, so you'll never have
| to guess when your team will hit your limit. The majority of our
| active free teams will have access to more of their message
| history with the new 90-day limit compared to the previous limit.
| No matter how much your free team uses Slack, you'll always have
| access to 90 days of history.
|
| This seems, if anything, more of a noticeable change.
| btown wrote:
| Agreed - this is an outrageous change for low-traffic groups.
| In an instant, tremendous amounts of history and early
| documentation for small projects will be wiped out. Families
| will lose their vacation planning that they started 4 months
| ago. Small open-source projects and ramen-stage startups will
| lose core operational pins. And for every one of these
| communities that ponies up for Pro, ten will move to Discord.
| Tools like https://github.com/thomasloupe/Slackord2 already
| exist.
|
| If anyone from Slack is reading this - I _desperately want_
| Slack to be the thing people reach for everything in their
| professional sphere. I want people to be exposed to it when
| they 're working on that side project in college, or when
| putting something together for a family project. Because
| Slack's search is far better designed for documentation-style
| posts... but more importantly, the world needs a tool that
| feels native to colleagues and collaborators from all different
| generations. If younger collaborators never experience free
| Slack and their entire view of professionalism is Discord
| communities, they'll demand Discord. And Discord, with gaming
| culture still writ throughout its design system, is a big ask
| for a non-gamer business professional to take in - Slack is
| quite correctly designed to be the level of approachable it
| needs to be. So communities will splinter on age boundaries,
| and opportunities for collaboration will be lost. Some of them
| might have even made bridges that would have accomplished
| tremendous social good. All wiped out in the blink of a little
| rotating gamepad icon.
|
| It's not too late. You could change the update to say "90 days
| of history, or the most recent 10k messages, whichever is
| higher." You could even do this silently so you don't need to
| walk back your posts. Doing so is at least a first step to
| preserving Slack as a cultural keystone into the far future in
| an evolving messaging environment. Please make the right
| choice.
| awill wrote:
| >>Families will lose their vacation planning that they
| started 4 months ago.
|
| Excuse my ignorance, but do people really do this? I use
| Slack for work, and have no desire to use it for personal
| reasons or with family. Especially when there are free
| messaging services that have fewer limitations.
| dchuk wrote:
| Nothing important should be singularly stored in a chat app.
| If it matters, store it somewhere more permanent.
|
| Chat needs to be ephemeral.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Why?
| chrismartin wrote:
| Disagree. The history is not just "chat". It's a valuable
| stream of questions and answers, problem solving, code
| snippets, bug reports, and user stories. It serves the
| purpose that a FLOSS project's mailing list archive did a
| decade ago.
|
| Did you know that SLACK was originally an acronym?
| mason55 wrote:
| Except with a mailing list, every conversation is grouped
| under a subject and all the replies are somewhere in the
| thread.
|
| On Slack, there's no such thing as a discussion-level
| subject, and people frequently end up replying outside
| the thread, or at a minimum there's other context outside
| the thread that people don't bother linking to because
| they think of chat as ephemeral, not that they are
| constantly building up an internal wiki.
| chrismartin wrote:
| When people bother to make them, channels provide
| discussion grouping at the subject level. Threads are an
| even finer-grained grouping that, granted, some people
| don't use. In my experience, all the problems you mention
| are also present (in some form) on mailing lists.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Then again, for all of the Slack communities I'm part of,
| the chat history is valuable because that's where the
| people prefer to hang out, thus that's where the valuable
| discussions emerge without anyone even planning it that
| way.
|
| There are often more durable options like a forum within
| the community, but that doesn't stop the Slack companion
| community from having high value discussions.
|
| You often don't know you're having a conversation worth
| having until it's done. Kind of like when you see really
| good discussion in Stack Overflow comments that you wish
| were upgraded into a community wiki question, but that's
| not how it emerged.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Slack is permanent for all matters and purposes.
|
| If you need the distinction, label it "discussion" instead
| of "chat", and assume that important discussions need to be
| kept around for reference.
|
| We have tons of one liner tickets with only a title and a
| link to a Slack thread, and it saves crazy amount of time
| and effort.
| abduhl wrote:
| This is a poorly designed process because, as this
| pricing change underscores, Slack is not permanent unless
| you pay them in perpetuity. Why would you place so much
| power over your internal processes in the hands of a
| third party? It may save a crazy amount of time and
| effort (it does not) but it will cost a crazy amount of
| money through lock in subscriptions or eventually being
| forced out of the ecosystem because your chats are 90
| days old.
|
| You could accomplish the exact same thing you've done by
| pasting the Slack discussion into the ticket or a text
| file with a link. Except you'd now control your future.
| So you've saved less than five seconds by copy pasting a
| Slack link instead of highlighting a bunch of Slack
| messages to copy paste.
| chrismartin wrote:
| Or you could use a libre and self-hostable chat platform
| (like Element on Matrix), and get rich discussion that
| costs little or nothing to keep around permanently.
| groby_b wrote:
| > Slack is permanent for all matters and purposes.
|
| Surely, you meant to say "Slack used to be permanent...".
|
| It's a valuable lesson that, it seems, each generation of
| engineers gets to learn anew. If it's not under your
| control (direct or contractual), you will lose it at some
| point.
| freediver wrote:
| We quite successfully use Discord for business purposes. Both
| for team communications and the user community. Discord is
| not perfect, but there was something with Slack that made it
| even less perfect. Hard to explain, I think it has to do with
| their product thinking.
| api wrote:
| > In an instant, tremendous amounts of history and early
| documentation for small projects will be wiped out.
|
| Self-hosted or it's not yours.
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| They still store the message history, don't they? If you
| upgrade you will be able to go back further and see those
| messages.
| ibidyouadrew wrote:
| ooo that's nice of them. I'll immediately be using free slacks
| to ingest millions of log messages a day as soon as this lands
| :) my development logs searchable and organized by channel is
| gonna be great
| ledauphin wrote:
| agreed. also, for several small groups I participate in that
| use Slack for coordination, this is a real downgrade, since we
| take years to generate 10000 messages.
| lkbm wrote:
| Yeah, though I think filesizes are the main thing my private
| groups hit. I haven't measured, but I'm guessing someone
| uploading a few images or a video causes weeks of messages to
| drop off the tail end.
| bombcar wrote:
| In some way "90 days" is a more humanly understandable
| limit than 10k messages or 5GB - as long as everyone knows
| it's an ephemeral channel they can work with it.
| prepend wrote:
| This is horrible for me and a few small communities I run.
| We'll have to stop using slack (discord I guess) as we don't
| have much traffic. We never got near the 10k limit and would
| use search quite a bit to find old items.
|
| I guess Slack doesn't mind losing these users. Of course we are
| free communities, but had also bought some seats for other
| projects.
|
| But this means I won't be able to use them any more.
| lbarrett wrote:
| It's possible to host a web app letting you view old Slack
| messages from an export, e.g.
| https://github.com/hfaran/slack-export-viewer or
| https://github.com/srid/Taut . I wonder if that can help in
| these use cases.
| chrismartin wrote:
| I have nothing but praise for Matrix, via element.io or any
| other client of your choice. It's user-friendly, mature,
| history is not restricted, and the public matrix.org
| homeserver works great. You can use Element in your browser
| or as an Electron app. We've been using Matrix for a couple
| of years for the project I work on (Exosphere). It's a much
| better fit for open, public communities than Slack is (or
| Discord for that matter). Matrix lets you have both public,
| non-encrypted rooms, and end-to-end-encrypted DMs (and
| private rooms) where the server doesn't see the content of
| messages. You can organize a collection of rooms in a "space"
| for your community.
|
| To ease the migration for your existing Slack users, you can
| even bridge Matrix channels to Slack channels, so people in
| either place still see all the messages.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Discord is great for voice and gaming but not a good tool for
| anything vaguely professional. Maybe Element/Matrix?
| MrsPeaches wrote:
| Can recommend Rocket Chat if your looking for an open source
| alternative to Slack.
|
| https://rocket.chat/
| codegeek wrote:
| TL:DR: On the Pro Plan, they are increasing the Price beginning
| Sep 1, 2022. Got this email below:
|
| "Switch to a yearly plan to keep our current rate for a year Your
| team's current rate for the monthly Slack Pro plan is $8
| USD/user/month.
|
| Our current rate for the yearly Slack Pro plan is $6.67
| USD/user/month, and we are offering monthly subscribers the
| opportunity to lock in that rate for 12 months by committing to a
| yearly Pro plan. To take advantage of this offer, switch to the
| yearly Pro plan before September 1.
|
| If you take no action, your monthly Pro price will adjust to
| $8.75 USD/user/month and will be reflected in your account on
| September 9th, 2022."
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I still think Slack are missing a huge revenue stream from open
| source/personal orgs. I would happily pay Slack $8.75 per month
| to get all the Enterprise features on all the random non-work
| slacks I'm a member of. I'm not willing to pay individually for
| each open source project or coworking space but I think there
| would be a lot of users who want this if you got even say 6 open
| source non-work orgs for that...
| tuetuopay wrote:
| Okay not as bad as I expected.
|
| With all that money, maybe they'll finally be able to create an
| app where ctrl+k does not have between one and ten seconds of
| delay before showing the menu? Surely that's possible.
| julianlam wrote:
| Every once in awhile Slack dedicates a bunch of developer time
| to fix UI lag. Loading the emoji autocompletion used to be very
| fast, and slowed down over time (we only have about 50 custom
| emoji.)
|
| At some point they refactored some things, made stuff faster,
| and wrote a nice blog post about it, and the emoji autocomplete
| was lightning fast again.
|
| Then of course, it slowed down incrementally over the next
| couple months until it is now unbearably slow again.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Is this really the time to be increasing prices when they are in
| an (anti-competitive) fight with Teams that is practically being
| given away?
| silisili wrote:
| I really don't understand this mindset. Devs are paid
| handsomely, most in the low 6 figures, good benefits, etc etc.
|
| So why switch to an inferior product just to save a few
| comparative pennies? I'd gladly ask my company to just remove
| the cost from my salary to not have to use teams.
| volongoto wrote:
| Probably it's easier to argue this on a small company, where
| the developers have a bigger impact. But I think in most
| companies, nobody asks the developers about these things. If
| the company is already invested in Office, then it's a no
| brainer to use Teams. It's free and supposedly does
| everything Slack does. It's well integrated with
| Outlook/Calendar, etc. When you already have a free solution
| it's very difficult to ask for a paid service with similar
| functionality. I don't like using Teams, but that's not a
| hill I'm willing to die on.
|
| To be honest, the only complain I have about Teams is how
| resource hungry and unresponsive the application is. But I
| think it does (or should I say "attempts to do") some things
| better than Slack. I like the way Teams displays the chat
| threads as conversations instead of a long, narrow and
| claustrophobic column on the right, for example. But, again,
| nobody asks me :)
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Synergy!
| baal80spam wrote:
| Maybe the don't do it "because they can" but "because they have
| to"?
| lsbehe wrote:
| >`<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; URL=">`
|
| Blocking javascript causes every page on slack.com to
| continuously refresh. Why?
| chrismartin wrote:
| "What are you doing with your weird broken browser, you
| weirdo?"
|
| (I am also a weirdo)
|
| Fun fact, Slack also started blocking Fierfox 78 ESR last
| winter, which was the default browser in Debian stable until
| just a couple of weeks ago. They didn't merely show an
| unsupported browser message, but actively prevented the app
| from loading. It still worked fine if you spoofed the user
| agent string to report a later Firefox version.
| adzm wrote:
| I'm always terrified that corporate will eventually decide to cut
| slack from the budget and stick with Teams.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Why? In my experience Teams has generally been better than
| Slack. People complain about Team's speed but I can't even
| count how often Slack used to get hung on me.
| xcambar wrote:
| I've witnessed firsthand that the main problem of Teams is
| that Slack is now so deeply wired into our daily working life
| that people cplain about Teams just because it differs from
| Slack.
|
| It doesn't even matter if the choices and ergonomics are
| better or worse... Since it's just not-Slack, it gets
| rejected by a certain (IMO quite large) share of the
| population.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Teams legitimately crashes every single time I open it. The
| stability is just.... not up to professional working
| standards.
|
| My company tried to switch to Teams and there was
| practically an employee uprising... it now sticks to Teams
| for all non-eng while eng does Slack.
| xcambar wrote:
| > it now sticks to Teams for all non-eng while eng does
| Slack.
|
| Why did the other depts stick to Teams?
|
| Your comment seems to precisely prove my point, when
| reading it from my seat :D
| dijit wrote:
| Other departments do what IT tell them, for the most
| part.
|
| eng usually knows about tech tools better than other
| departments.
|
| For programs: Ask the finance department about Sage and
| excel and they will have opinions.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Lots of pressure from the top to use Teams for what one
| might call political reasons.
| albedoa wrote:
| > Why did the other depts stick to Teams?
|
| You misunderstand. They didn't have a say.
| ecshafer wrote:
| I used Teams for several years before ever using slack. And
| honestly, Teams is hands down one of the absolute worst
| pieces of software I have ever used. Its slow, it has a
| terrible UI, it's clunky, it drops calls, uses tons of
| memory. Its absolute garbage. I've only used Slack for a
| few months and I think its lightyears better.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| For me it's information retrieval. For some reason searching
| in teams will return my search text "Hey, where is the
| _Controller_ located? ", but I can't actually navigate to the
| message right after it, which is the answer.
| albedoa wrote:
| I can't wrap my head around the decision. There is a "go to
| message" button, which brings you to the exact message you
| were already looking at in the search results but still
| completely isolated from context.
| pmontra wrote:
| It seems that it would be impossible to be signed in in
| multiple Teams of different customers https://feedbackportal.
| microsoft.com/feedback/idea/d256e0f6-...
|
| Hopefully my customers will keep using Slack.
| andkenneth wrote:
| The idea is you can be invited to a team in another tenant
| from your own account.
| julianlam wrote:
| ... and? In reality that's probably not how some not
| insignificant minority of Teams users access the service.
|
| I have clients that create external accounts for me under
| their domain. Once signed in, I can no longer sign into a
| different account, so my meeting with other clients have
| Company A in my email... kind of odd.
|
| Of course, I can't actually create a personal Teams
| account, because my company does not use Teams.
|
| So, I decided to burn everything MS Teams related out of
| my home directory, and start fresh. I am now a guest user
| for every company that needs calls done via Teams.
|
| Arguably a worse off solution, no?
| flerchin wrote:
| Default-open nature of channels combined with infinite
| retention and good search means that I can find the
| information from a conversation 3 years ago that's relevant
| to my current issue. The Ergo, for chat, is better than all
| the competitors.
|
| Main thing though is the default-open. If you don't get that,
| well that's ok, many people don't.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Welp, I guess I have to say it for the 6th time (wonder when
| I'll stop counting). Teams on Linux is a complete nightmare,
| with the most egregious aspect being that it continues
| recording audio after you leave a meeting (which is easily
| proven by just joining a meeting, leaving and opening
| Pavucontrol). Someone recently mentioned to me in HN that
| disabling spacial meeting recognition or some crap like that
| fixes it, but I haven't been at my computer since to try it
| out.
|
| It's been like this for at least a year and a half, and I've
| submitted it through the "feedback form" countless times.
|
| Ps.: Interestingly enough, in Pavucontrol the application
| shows up as "Skype", with the icon and all.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| For Teams, I'm shocked when it works the first time I click
| it. Usually because I was signed into another group's Teams
| and happened to go back to that one.
|
| My bigger problem with teams is their multi-Team model. In
| between my current and last job, I (part time) contracted
| with a handful of groups and every single one added me to
| their Slack or Teams group. With Slack, they popped up as
| separate orgs and I could move between them as I needed. With
| Teams, I had to log out of one to open the other.
|
| I will never know how many questions I missed (aka billable
| hours) and people I annoyed by "ignoring" them when I had
| simply had to join some other group's Teams to take a call
| and forgot to come back to their Teams.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Seems like you got the good end of the stick wrt
| authentication. At least twice over the past year and a
| half my account got stuck in a login -> redirect -> logout
| loop for days. If I had to regularly log out of Teams I
| suspect this would manifest itself more often.
| NAHWheatCracker wrote:
| I can't believe anyone would say that Teams is better than
| Slack.
|
| Almost everything about Slack is better. It's easier to
| manage conversations/channels. It's easier to read. It's
| easier to write. It's easier to customize.
|
| The only thing I've heard is that Slack is unstable for some
| people. I haven't experienced any stability issues in 3+
| years using the MacOS app. I've heard that the Slack web
| interface may be the cause of stability issues.
|
| We have Slack in my organization, but corporate has started
| using Teams for the past year. I think the writing is on the
| wall, and I'm dreading it.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Now do a cost benefit analysis. I'm willing to bet teams is
| free if you're buying other MSFT products. Personally, I'm
| not a fan of either and I'd take discord over either.
| AndrewUnmuted wrote:
| If I had to use either of these things as part of running my
| team of 12 engineers, I'd resign immediately.
|
| I feel so sorry for those who continue operating in such
| soulless, life-sucking work environments that they're down to
| choosing which horrible attention-grabbing SaaS product they'd
| rather use.
|
| Have you not considered simply using neither? What is wrong
| with email? Hell, what's wrong with a phone call?
| marcinzm wrote:
| >Hell, what's wrong with a phone call?
|
| >attention-grabbing
| corrral wrote:
| > Hell, what's wrong with a phone call?
|
| You have to remember to take notes.
|
| I hate going to find something in Slack history and seeing a
| phone call right around where I think important information
| may have been conveyed. At best, I have to go look other
| places to find it. At worst, there's nothing. And since I may
| not have been on the call, it may not even be _possible_ for
| me to have notes, short of bugging the people who
| participated and hoping they took notes.
|
| This even goes for personal stuff. I much prefer when my wife
| sends me important info via chat (not Slack, in this case)
| rather than calling, unless it's _super_ time-sensitive, for
| basically the same reason.
|
| Email evades the objection to calls, sure, but I've yet to
| see an email client that doesn't suck for low-friction
| multiparty chat. Yes, including gmail. I'm pretty sure this
| _could_ be solved by a client, but I 've not seen it, and I
| think part of the problem is having to accommodate other
| clients' default quoting behavior and threading and such, so
| it may be something that could _technically_ be solved by a
| good client, but couldn 't _in fact_ be solved by a client.
| agluszak wrote:
| Huddles, Clips, probably some kind of TikTok-like stories next...
| for me Slack has never become anything more than a good and
| reliable, but still a simple chat app (one of ~10 I have
| installed on my phone) dedicated for work.
|
| > "In a true digital HQ, you can move all communications--even
| those with external partners and customers--from siloed email
| inboxes to channels and direct messages in Slack." Siloed email
| inboxes? Slack's solution is precisely putting everyone into
| THEIR silo/walled garden.
|
| I'm still waiting for the EU to enforce at least some degree of
| inter-compatibility between chat apps. I'm tired of switching
| between FB Messenger, Instagram, Discord, Slack, Signal,
| Whatsapp, Matrix and whatnot.
| guenthert wrote:
| I'm still waiting for the EU to enforce a ban on chat apps.
| vitus wrote:
| RIP, XMPP + federation
|
| (fb messenger, slack, whatsapp, hangouts/gchat, and more used
| to be accessible through a single client. That said, I recall
| federation was mostly unsupported by the various hosts, so you
| still needed to be logged in to each service.)
| porcc wrote:
| Silo as in only-for-the-email-recipients
| smcleod wrote:
| To be fair huddles are really useful, simple and low impact to
| have a quick verbal chat and maybe screen share without having
| a formal meeting.
| Arathorn wrote:
| > I'm still waiting for the EU to enforce at least some degree
| of inter-compatibility between chat apps. I'm tired of
| switching between FB Messenger, Instagram, Discord, Slack,
| Signal, Whatsapp, Matrix and whatnot.
|
| Well, it's happening. The final phase of the legislation passed
| today:
| https://twitter.com/SamuelStolton/status/1548955978166575104
| adrr wrote:
| If slack polled all their paying customers if inter-
| compatibility was important, do you think any of them would
| agree it was? As a slack customer I never had any need to have
| cross app support for my internal chat tool. That would be a
| headache for my IT team supporting multiple apps.
| lmm wrote:
| > If slack polled all their paying customers if inter-
| compatibility was important, do you think any of them would
| agree it was?
|
| Being able to use slack to talk with their clients /
| suppliers who don't use slack (and who often have their own
| preferred chat system) would definitely be important/valuable
| to many of them. Hell, I've worked at more than one place
| where you couldn't use slack to talk to a different
| department and this was an issue recognised by management.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not sure if there's a
| name for it but I would consider Slack a productivity hack
| that actually hurts productivity in the long run. Chat apps
| are like a quick fix for poor management, which leads to
| everyone interrupting everyone else due to lack of
| documentation or escalation paths. The P2P model works but
| it is wildly inefficient and no one ends up being held
| accountable.
|
| If Slack didn't exist, leaders would have to come up with
| documentation, rules and processes to shuffle work around,
| probably much more efficiently.
| zaik wrote:
| We have an internet standard for interoperable instant
| messaging since 2004.
|
| Companies really don't like you can escaping their walled
| gardens and users/customers never made compliance with internet
| standards a requirement for the services they use.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Facebook uses a variant of Facebook to have employees promote
| their work internally. I think it makes sense for larger
| organizations - person to person chat and all hands are missing
| an element in the middle where teams may want to promote the
| outcome of a particular project to their larger org, but not to
| everyone. Right now I've seen Slack channels used for that
| purpose, so it makes sense to help augment that with some
| additional features. Medium bandwidth, medium reach.
|
| You might argue this sort of communication is unnecessary but
| it's very hard to get big orgs consistently on the same page.
| An all-hands is just not the right tool for that.
| naet wrote:
| I always thought $5+ per user (per month) is a really high fee
| for a not all that great service and pretty clunky client. There
| should be a text-only budget version that costs less for leaner
| organizations that can use other services for sharing large
| files, video or audio calls, etc.
| devmunchies wrote:
| Has anyone had success with Google chat? Looks like a competitor
| and many companies already pay for Google Workspace.
| https://workspace.google.com/products/chat/
| malkuth23 wrote:
| If I were starting over, I would probably push for Google Chat.
| It was such a chore getting my workmates to switch to Slack
| from email, that I don't want to disturb the delicate balance.
| That said, Google Chat has less integrations and I don't trust
| Google to keep products around.
|
| Besides the price, Google Meet is miles better than Slack video
| chat. I know most people just pay for Zoom, but for those of us
| that are stuck in Slack calls, Meet is a huge improvement.
|
| I wonder if there is a tool to migrate all public messages from
| Slack to Google Chat?
| jjcm wrote:
| We use it for our family chat, and so far it's been a total
| pain. Google changes things so regularly, but with little
| awareness of the impact those changes make. At one point they
| deprecated hangouts for chat, but required hangouts still for
| viewing video on mobile, while also enabling partially
| supported chat on gmail. What ended up happening was there was
| a period where I had to have all 3 apps on my phone to use it,
| and I'd get a notification from all 3 for every message:
| https://twitter.com/pwnies/status/1404895098194644994
|
| The one thing I will say that's great about it is their search
| functionality is top tier.
| volongoto wrote:
| I believe, their history of messaging apps, makes it very
| difficult to rely on Google in this area. Organizations that
| are already in Google's ecosystem will probably use it, but I
| doubt it will have any significance otherwise. As long as you
| don't have a need to use it towards other organizations it
| should work (but don't ever expect Google to implement a
| feature that is requested by their customers).
|
| [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-
| half-... [2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/02/so-nice-
| they-killed-...
| notwhereyouare wrote:
| One feature I wish you could do is add people to a group chat and
| keep history. Or prompt if you're adding to a chat to convert to
| a channel and keep history.
|
| I probably once a month start a group chat and need to add
| somebody to it and all context is gone
| Solvitieg wrote:
| Finding myself liking Slack these days.
|
| I was really big into Deep Work's hyperactive hivemind and saw
| Slack as a negative until I took a full remote job and found it
| to be a critical tool for async communication.
|
| The solution ended up being really simple: cmd + q when I want to
| focus.
| [deleted]
| dahdum wrote:
| Having seen so many SAAS turn the screws on their customers over
| the years with absurd price hikes it's refreshing to see such a
| reasonable one.
|
| ZenDesk's 300% hike still stings over a decade later.
| brianwawok wrote:
| zendesk sure cost a lot of money for an app that if I submit a
| support ticket (using zendesk of course) it takes 3-4 days to
| be told to restart my computer. (Nope, not it, guess again).
| adrr wrote:
| I would think they would be lowering their price to compete
| against Microsoft Teams. Teams is eating their business because
| it comes bundled with Microsoft365 subscription.
| ubertaco wrote:
| I just left Salesforce, and on the way out I talked to some folks
| who saw Slack as the last decent corner of the company to work in
| (while that lasts).
|
| As someone who worked at a company Salesforce acquired, I can say
| from experience that tinkering with pricing and packages is how
| it starts. Next will be tight integration with Salesforce's
| nightmare monolith, and then a mountain of compliance bureaucracy
| burden as salespeople try to convince government agencies that
| they need something they don't and that making compliance burdens
| more and more insane is good for them (when in reality it's just
| a transparent attempt at giving Salesforce more of a "most"
| around their business to keep out any upstart competitors who
| might otherwise enter the market with the same or better product
| for cheaper).
|
| If the current pattern holds, this will culminate in mass exodus
| from engineering and a promotion for some execs for
| "strengthening Salesforce's position in the marketplace" while
| "cutting costs" in the form of reducing the number of salaries
| they pay out)
| punnerud wrote:
| Will be interesting to see how they handle Shrems iii, if the
| software have to be able to run without influence by American
| companies (aka OnPrem) to operate in Europe
| Mandatum wrote:
| Uhhh, if you have LinkedIn Navigator, check ex-Slack engineers.
| Everyone who was pre-IPO without many RSU's has already left.
|
| Management has already left, in true Salesforce and Oracle
| fashion they'll be pushing Salesforce VP's into senior
| leadership roles at Slack - starting with regions.
|
| 1 year acquisition anniversary is next week, so you'll see an
| influx of more, and then the final exodus will be 1 year later
| when KPI's for 2-year employee retention bonuses runs out.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-18 23:01 UTC)