Beyond that, a well made UI for web, desktop and phone that is consistent is valuable. 'Adding a pretty UI' isn't a zero-effort or skill thing.
No, Slack isn't a world away from IRC or email - but it's enough better that people want to use it, that's good. I'm not sure where all the hate comes from.
I can't think of a single feature they've done that is innovative. Attaching a file to a message?. Searching history? These aren't new or special in any way shape or form.
What slack did far more than UI, was UX. Top to bottom, it's a very nice UX. It's why i love Slack.
There's no hate coming from me - i'm just a realist. Slack didn't do anything amazing. It just did things right. Which is unfortunate for all of us users, as it took so many years to do things right. Unfortunately for slack though, they showed what is a good UX.. how hard do you think it is to copy that UX? Not easy, sure, but the template is there. Spend some time copying Slack, and i think you can manage to make Slack.Clone.
If people need something to be 'amazing' not to put it down, and 'amazing' doesn't include doing the right things to be highly successful...
If no one else did it, was it really so obvious?
Similarly, Microsoft has already operated a widely used integrated chat, profile, and community system at scale. Given their recent pushes, it wouldn't be entirely surprising for them to bring back similar platforms for business users integrated with LinkedIn.
That would eat a lot of Slack's potential big clients, because MS has a history of enterprise grade support on products like that, and Slack has scale issues for large orgs.
Microsoft will quickly take over this market if they offer an easy-to-manage on-prem solution that's integrated with the company directory, as it seems they've done. Plenty of firms already have Exchange and ActiveDirectory and Skype for Business.
Check it out using any Matrix-enabled app: https://matrix.to/#/#matrix:matrix.org
The claim is something else entirely: "Slack is not innovative, therefore it is not immune to competition."
There isn't any value judgment with the second claim. "didn't do anything amazing" is a statement of fact, not a put down. It's not somehow morally bad to do nothing amazing! If anything, it's morally good. There's no sense wasting time building amazing technological breakthroughs when the problem space doesn't need it, and just needs someone to execute well on boring problems. (Slack is particularly good at recognizing this and just getting the job done; see also their tech stack running on PHP.)
The lock-in due to loss of history is a bigger reason to stick with slack though once you have it.
I don't think they even do that well, it's a complete nightmare finding anything on slack beyond the last 24 hours.
What Slack did well was branding and marketing.
It never works the way I expect it to work, and very simple things that you can do within IRC takes multiple steps in Slack.
I am also a remote software engineer who have been working on distributed teams for the past 8 years. I've tried a bunch of different things to collaborate remotely, including IRC. Your mileage may vary.
Either way each choice is just a tool and if it works for you - thanks great!
I've been working on applying the theory of Kanban starting from first principle: "Make work visible." Visibility helps develop trust. Slacks helps with signaling a lot, and there are obviously a lot of thought put into the design.
Some examples:
1. URL for every message. I can paste that URL into Github PRs or Jira to reference a conversation where people talk through something.
2. Cross-device notifications and fallbacks, and other controls such as Do Not Disturb, etc. This allows me to control heads-down coding vs. when people needs help.
3. Notification integration helps. I know there are IRC bots that can do that, but how well you can just click through things depends upon the IRC client you choose. Being able to see a log of say, Github and Jira (usually in a separate channel) helps stay in the loop. The same with when adding CI/CD notifications.
4. Starring messages helps me manage time. I don't read everything people send over the chat. I certainly do NOT try replacing person-to-person contact with Slack (or IRC or HipChat). Sometimes I'll star something I want to read later (which may or may not happen).
5. URLs posted often have previews, which also helps with managing whether I go read it or not.
I'm sure these things can be done with IRC, and Hipchat probably copied over some of these ideas. Mattermost has certainly cloned the important stuff. By no means am I saying any of this seem earth-shattering innovative, but it is clear to me that Slack was designed around remote working, and it works well.
To keep things in perspective too: before Gmail, I used to run my own web server and used terminal-based apps for that. I don't do that anymore because it was easier to just dump things in Gmail and then search for things I need. I'm still keeping my tmux+emacs setup though -- maybe I'm missing out with web-based development.
So yeah, Slack is a great tool, and it works well with what I do. If you don't use it with discipline, or you have not developed much of a philosophy on how this all works together, it's not going to work well. You won't have a philosophical framework in which to curate or vet what you want in your life or attention-space.
I feel like they get in the way more than anything - and other platforms can still implement those just as easily.
Do you have any other issues, just curious or is their search algorithm enough to make the Slack platform a net bad UX?
This reminds me a lot of HN dismissing Dropbox on the original show HN or something:
"We have git, rsync, FTP. We can hack something like this together in an afternoon."
Except that was before Dropbox went ahead to become a huge success.
This time we are saying this after Slack has already established itself. :-]
Sure, i'm not calling Slack amazing - but i very clearly said i use slack, love it, pay for it and recommend it. I used Dropbox too.
I don't think anyone here is claiming Slack isn't a massive success. Nor that the product is any less great because it's not innovative. A comment like:
> This time we are saying this after Slack has already established itself. :-]
seems to suggest "we" are somehow wrong.. but i'm not sure where. Is my above statement somehow wrong? Or are you simply linking success and innovation where as i am not?
> seems to suggest "we" are somehow wrong.. but i'm not sure where.
Thanks, it was just an attempt to not talk down to anyone even if I disagree.
Rethinking it I think they might have been really innovative, but more in sales, marketing etc than in pure technical terms.
MS is going to bundle LinkedIn with a Slack-clone tied to their CMS and AI chat systems, and provide an easy-to-scale-in-private-cloud platform to enterprise. Part of their Azure smart services.
That's all people mean: Slack did a pretty good job, but it's very similar to stuff MS has done before, and there's not really a secret sauce trench. So MS will probably be able to win a lot of the enterprise market.
Only tied to Office365, not Azure and LinkedIn.
https://products.office.com/en-US/microsoft-teams/group-chat...
I've used xmpp chats with a couple of clients since well before slack and I'd struggle to think of a feature in slack that I hadn't used before.
But if you don't like Slack, I'm guessing Mattermost is out of the question as well. I'm still using IRC in a lot of places which "just works", but obviously that is missing a lot of features and fluff of newer technologies, even if some can be retrofitted in.
Please et me know what you decide and your success since it's still relevant for me in a couple of places.
Both companies can probably make well enough money to survive and achieve growth, but maybe not such an exponential growth the investors where expecting.
I wouldn't even credit them with that. 20 minutes ago I yet again pressed up-arrow to scroll up one line to see a message off the top of the page and yet again it dropped me into an editing prompt for my last message. What?
And then there's the click-click-click of jumping between channels to see the latest messages, instead of having some form of summary.
In my experience people tolerate the UI of Slack, they don't praise it.
Slack's innovation was getting a huge funding round, blowing it on advertising to mainstream non-tech markets and trying to build a competitive moat with 3rd party integrations that other developers are incentivized to make on their own due to Slack's large user base.
I think the first was the bot that told you off for using gendered pronouns.
The evangelism it has fostered has been a great promoter, however now I think if our company (non-tech) adopted it - it would be a massive distraction.
Bots to sit in channels to passively log; bots which act to send messages to people who are presently offline, at the time at which they come online again; and so on.
Adding a log to IRC isn't particularly innovative. Slack's value is almost entirely in its user engagement, not its technology.
Nor was it obvious that if someone put it together properly it would achieve commercial success. I was theoretically in the right place at the right time to have put together something like Slack at my job, but there was no desire to invest enough to do that and eventually the entire product was EOL'ed a couple of years before Slack was released, not just because the product itself was not doing well but the entire market segment was not doing well. Commercial IM products have not done well historically, because it was difficult to do enough better than the free stuff to get people to pay.
What Slack may demonstrate is that, indeed, there was a market there all along, it's just the activation energy was higher than almost anyone was prepared to pay.
Not marketing, or features or UX - price was key for us.
I still hope Slack wins, but MS is a very serious threat. In the end its best for us, users - prices will drop, new features will be added, support will be awesome all thanks to competition.
The only "innovation" Slack provided was the UI, and that's textbook "bad startup idea", because of how easy it is for someone else to step into the space.
It did indeed... implement them as pieces. The out-of-the-box experience for an IRC network does not look like Slack.
And the UI was a non-trivial component. Personally I'm in the segment who doesn't much care and for whom IRC is a fine amount of bandwidth... but a looooot of other people, including lots of people with money, want something more.
Slack is not "just IRC". The proof is that if it was, we wouldn't be talking about Slack, we'd be talking about IRC. We aren't.
Those people with money can easily be stolen out from under Slack, precisely because they didn't innovate, they simplified.
Slack is "just IRC", and the proof is that if it were more, there wouldn't be nearly as much competition in the space, with more people joining every month, it seems.
Slack didn't innovate, it simplified. I called it a "UI" simplification, but you can call it whatever you like. They didn't innovate on technology, and that's a dangerous place to build your startup, because someone like Microsoft can eat your lunch and there's nothing you can do about it.
Who gives a damn about innovative? It may have been obvious and simple, but if no one else is doing it well, and they do, sneering at it seems dumb. They made a good call, and are profiting from it.
Pings show up - if you desperately need phone notifications there are many apps/solutions to deal with that too. (but lets be real...nobody ~really~ wants notifications outside of work)
Providing value is not the whole story. That's why I begin looking for alternative factors -- like luck and circumstance.
The thing keeping HipChat going in the face of Slack is that Slack can't be used on-premises, which is HUGE for an extremely large percentage of business.
HipChat hasn't improved as fast as Slack because they haven't needed to-- since no HIPAA-compliant business (to give just one example) can use Slack at all, the two products don't really compete with each other currently.
That doesn't apply to this new Microsoft solution, which will probably kill-off HipChat long before it kills off Slack. Unless Atlassian really gets their butt moving and starts improving their product.
Even when the worked, Hipchat notifications weren't configurable a the granularity I wanted.
Slack also is prettier and feels more cohesive to me, but that's a secondary concern.
Move Slack into IRC's position, and Microsoft Teams into Slack's position, and you can see what Microsoft is trying to do. The problem with Slack is that right now, they're caught in the middle. They're not a consumer-facing company (at least, their profit model isn't consumer-facing), but, at the same time, they haven't invested in the boring schlep work (auditing, compliance, etc.) to make their product truly competitive to large enterprises. So they're stuck in this small-to-medium business space, while Microsoft is trying to vault ahead of them to capture the large enterprises.
From what I've seen, this is pretty much Microsoft's cloud strategy in a nutshell: take other companies' products, do the boring schlep work to add auditing, compliance, Active Directory Integration, etc. and then sell it to enterprises as a cloud service. This appears to be Azure's strategy against AWS, Office 365's strategy against Google Docs, Visual Studio Team Services' strategy against Github, and now, Microsoft Teams' strategy against Slack. It's a brilliant strategy that plays to Microsoft's strengths - knowing the needs of enterprise customers - while relying on the broader market to fill in for its weaknesses in discovering new products and doing UI design.
Furthermore, in the IRC world that's not uncommon either; Quasseldroid does this. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iskrembile...
People always point at everything and go 'this stuff existed!' - even if all Slack did was pull everything together into a single cohesive environment, that's useful to people, it provides value. I'm shocked people are shocked by that idea.
Some of the most important work in the tech industry is highly valuable and not one bit innovative. CRUD apps that bridge data from two different parts of an organization are amazingly valuable and amazingly important, but have no innovation. There's nothing wrong with that CRUD app—but there's nothing making that app better from another CRUD app that also bridges those two departments.
None of this thread is saying that Slack is bad. It's not criticizing Slack. It's not saying people are wrong to use it. It's just saying that people can jump ship very easily because there's nothing innovative.
Slack is great. I use it daily and love it. But the things I like about it aren't tied to Slack the company in any way, and it would be easy for me to love Microsoft Teams (or some hypothetical open-source, competent-at-UX, mobile-enabled version of IRC) every bit as much. Slack doesn't seem to realize that.
More precisely, I hope that if Microsoft builds a vastly better product, that they kill Slack, and if Slack builds a vastly better product, that they kill Teams, and if someone else builds a vastly better product (maybe Ryver stops arguing on Twitter and focuses on product? maybe everyone realizes that Zulip has been awesome all along? maybe Mattermost builds great mobile apps?), they kill both Slack and Teams. And I hope Slack does not get complacent about the product they have built and how hard it is to build a vastly better one, because I am currently using Slack and invested in it. I hope this because competition is a good thing. Is that wrong?
I don't hate Slack; heck, I've never even used it. But like _many_ people I'm disappointed that we still don't have a non-proprietary, federated IM system. That leaves most of us ambivalent, and some of us bitter.
IRC is still around, but IRC isn't a substitute for IM. IRC can't be truly federated because there's no global directory or routing the way there is for SMS or XMPP.
XMPP is still around. I can even chat with a few GTalk stragglers, and quite a few tech-savvy people still run their own XMPP servers. But it seems to be on the decline. For a brief period it was gaining corporate momentum, but that stopped years ago.
My company still uses XMPP for corporate IM. Fortunately, nobody can agree whether to move to IRC, HipChat, or Slack. So for now I can actually instant message with co-workers from my personal XMPP server/account. That was actually useful when I was on contract and didn't have (or want to deal with) juggling and logging onto corporate accounts.
Somebody else suggested Slack was like the iPhone, in that it offered features and usability previously unimagined. I don't think so. The iPhone wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it wasn't a _phone_. It would have just been a fancy minicomputer if it didn't have the built-in capability to interoperate with any other phone, and participate in the global federated telephone and SMS network.
For all of Slacks features, they pale in comparison to what _could_ be. They could still create a better IM client, with better searching, indexing, etc, etc. But if it supported global federation a la XMPP, the sky would be the limit. Instead of the Internet people are simply excited about an upgraded AOL experience.
I found it really cool that I could spend ~half an hour setting it up on my own server then just pop in on chats on another server.
(Sure, not as poslished but that would only take one more designer to fix.)
What I'm saying here is that GP is correct, and you are significantly overestimating the value of what Slack provides. They have the mindshare right now, but that's really all. They don't even the benefits a company like Facebook has, since a Slack competitor is still useful if a small number of people use it, as opposed to social media companies who are not useful at all unless they have a large userbase.
It's not a huge barrier to entry though.
I think the hate comes from the ridiculous letter.
I don't think people are hating on slack here, it's just that what they do isn't nearly as hard to u.plement as they seem to think it is, so a letter like this just comes off as pompous.
Sure. Nice feature. hardly game-changing or innovative.
Our company is just getting on the Slack train. I'm honestly underwhelmed with the experience. I suppose I expected a lot given the hype and valuation. My main gripe is the lack of UI customization.
Perhaps you should also try using email. Or SMS. They can do that.
That may be dependent on team dynamics.
Also, if all it took was a pretty UI, companies like Hipchat would have been the winner years ago. I mean, Slack has a better UI in my opinion than Hipchat, but it's an example of taking the basics of IRC and slapping an interface of it.
Besides that though, I agree this letter was pretty stupid.
And the iPhone was just a phone with a pretty UI.
Slack is winning exactly for the same reason that the iPhone did, and you're misjudging it for the same reason that a lot of people misjudged Apple: It's all about execution. The first iPhone had the same features as previous phones, but those features were executed so much better than the competition. Slack is the same way. It's an evolutionary product with a revolutionary execution, and should be rightly praised for being innovative in an industry that often moves in surprisingly slow ways — which the state of IRC, HipChat, Skype etc. shows needed serious disruption.
And as with the iPhone, Slack is facing the same problem: Once you've shown how things _can_ be done, everyone else will jump on the same wandwagon.
(I realize you didn't say anything that contradicts the above; this is more about the dismissive attitude towards leaders like Slack.)
The browser was the killer feature. Remember Jobs going to the NYT website?
I remember the awful browser on the Nokia N73 (my last phone before the iPhone), which had a largeish screen and a little joystick to control a mouse pointer, but no touchscreen.
Exactly. The point of the demo was "this browser is just as good as one on a computer".
The problem is, Slack has a user base consisting mainly of people willing to switch to the "next big thing" pretty quickly. That's how they got to Slack, but there's nothing preventing those people from leaving to move onto something new. Most slower to react companies are still using Lync, and probably won't ever switch to Slack.
The reason I use Slack is because it is better than any of the alternatives, but I wouldn't hesitate to switch to something better if it comes around.
Perhaps an open source utility will be written that can package all of the content and metadata required for your chat service up as a JSON bundle for import elsewhere.
https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/201658943-Export-yo...
https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/204897248-Guide-to-...
I'm not so sure. I got us using Slack at work, and that was after about 12 months of hearing ads for it. It is IRC plus a slick UI and integrated bots, but putting all that together with a web UI and a dedicated client and phone apps makes it multiple times better than regular IRC for the common person.
I don't use twitter. I only started actually using my Facebook account I've had for many years last week, after finally deciding it's curring me off from people to not use it. I've never used Instagram or Snapchat or any of those other newer things. I'm not what you would call "people willing to switch to the next big thing". Quite the opposite in fact. At this point, the new users of slack are hearing about it from other people that are themselves 3-4 people removed from those early adopters.
That said, Slack isn't a perfect snowflake. It's a simple idea executed well. The reason I was so for it once I finally bothered to check it out is because my prior experience with IRC let me immediately see the value they had created by combining IRC and all the extras for IRC together in a nice package, and made it accessible to less technical people.
> The reason I use Slack is because it is better than any of the alternatives, but I wouldn't hesitate to switch to something better if it comes around.
Same here on why I use it, but I would hesitate switching (given most my usage is work related). If Google had a good competitor, we would probably switch, since it was our solution to crappy support for what we need in Hangouts, as all our other stuff is in Google Apps. I imagine a lot of people/companies might feel the same way with MS if their stack is dominated by MS products. For those that already have a fairly heterogeneous environment, there's probably less reason to switch to the major names, but I imagine those groups are already fairly on board with trying new tools to find what works best, so have little allegiance.
Edit: s/seeing ads/hearing ads/. I think a really good case could be made that Slack was genius to market on podcasts as much as they did, and on the ones they did, and that might have been instrumental to their growth.
It's a nice option for small communities and people who need voice chat, though.
They still need some polishing, but once they fix some bugs and add good support for history and searching, I think it'll be fantastic.
They promise the core features will remain free, but I don't trust that when investors come knocking for a return, and I expect unless they find a very suitable model, it will slowly start to get worse at some point. I seriously doubt their core audience (people playing games) is going to throw money at them for things, like, skins, or something. Maybe they plan on more "B2B" style profitability where they do deep integration with partners like Youtube, Twitch etc behind the scenes?
FWIW: I say this as someone who's extremely happy with Discord since I switched me and my friends over to it for playing games, and as someone who thinks they really do have a solid product. And as someone who'd hate to see it go into the shitter just because of the above. It's wonderfully stable for its youth, and it's light years ahead of Skype, Vent, Mumble in terms of "Just Works", and has every feature we've needed, and more (the moderation/ACL, and external service features keep getting better, for example).
Maybe my only complaint with Discord is that, because it's so feature rich, it's actually a bit confusing to initially wrap your head around, in terms of UI/UX. I had to guide a few of my more non-technical friends through the UI when they first used it. Things like, non-obvious buttons and stuff like that.
I personally like the UI/UX, except some of the channel management features. It took me some time to figure out how to set ranks and give permissions.
My personal biggest gripe is the lack of easy searching. I rely on it a lot, and Skype usually does an okay job at it (even though it can often be slow and tends to lag the UI).
People who are totally active directory and exchange are going to use Teams. Nobody else is.
Disclaimer: I am one of the creator of Errbot that was designed for this specific purpose (be chat system independent)
I'm happy they have a reason to bother now.
Execution is a lot, but so is timing. Execution can be controlled, timing is mostly luck.
> Slack could have done what most companies do when a competitor rips them off, and said nothing.
Someone competing in your space is NOT ripping you off.
It is extremely hard to create a compelling and delightful user experience that is also maintainable so that new features can be added quickly. So to say "they just slapped a nice UI on IRC" is a little short sighted.
It is kind of amazing that Slack are the only chat system out of dozens our hundreds who can make a UI that doesn't suck (I wouldn't even call Slack good), but evidence would suggest it's true.
> Yes, that scrappy startup Microsoft will not have too much trouble implementing a chat room and they don't need luck to get users.
Well they've tried four or five times and always managed to screw it up.
Yes, Slack's core tech has been around for decades now, and that it is pretty much a gussied up IRC with some bots. But they found that IRC is awesome for what it does and they found that businesses needed something like IRC with bots. Luck is for sure what they have, but they also followed it up. A favorite site of mine recently had a post on follow-through [0]. I'll quote the part that is relevant to Slack:
"There’s a dearth of people who know, or have the will, to do the stupidly easy stuff to be charming and successful. Let me give you just one example. Both off the air and on, guests of my podcast will tell me, “I can tell you actually read my book before this interview and I really appreciate that. It’s so rare.” I don’t bring this up to toot my own horn, but rather to point out how ridiculous it is that this might even be something worthy of mention! An interviewer reading someone’s work before asking them questions about it would seem like the barest of bare minimum job requirements — a prerequisite rather than something above and beyond. And yet the majority of podcasters aren’t even taking care of this most basic of basics. There are tons of people doing what you want to do, but how are they executing? In 90% of cases, not as well as they could be. That’s your opening. And such openings are absolutely everywhere." (emphasis from the source)
Slack is this to a T. It's simple stuff, but they followed through with it. They spent time on the code, on iterating, on making sure it was not just ok, but good. And as a result they are not eating Ramen anymore. Is MS going to squish them? Who knows?! What we do know is that Slack is capable of following through with this product and the MS has a history of not being able to do so. I'd put the money into Slack over MS in the long run. But we will have to wait and see if MS will dump enough cash into their competitor to squish them out before MS runs out of follow-through and bureaucratic stamina.
[0]http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/10/10/myth-scarcity-12-st...
In short, they are entrenched and have done a great job of ensuring that the cost of switching is high enough that it's going to take a lot of justification to get somebody to take the time to make the move.
All they really have to do is avoid a colossal screw up.
And they didn't even add it, Metalab did. http://metalab.co/projects/slack/
Think about apple products. You could throw your hands up and say "but there's nothing innovative here! they just built a pretty UI on top of BSD and people have been using Unix operating systems for 50 years!". True, but it's the pretty UI that connects it to the masses.
Slack took a concept that has been done to death (a chat server) and made it useable and accessible. I remember years ago installing pidgin, psi and adium at work because they all ran on different operating system and som guru had to configure an XMPP server somewhere in the company. Then at home i'd fire up mirc to work on some open source. My daughter would come home and hop onto yahoo chat so she could send terrible looking ascii/emoji bling to all her friends.
Yesterday i came into work and some guy came over and saw i had slack up and said, "whoa i love slack, do we have a company server for this?" I said, "yep". He said "send me an invite! i'm gonna go get my boss on this". That sort of emotional reaction to a product I think is what makes something a success.
I a chat room innovative? no. But i think success can't really be wholly described in terms of innovation either. Somehow software has to connect with real people (iXXX - because i own it?) and get people to buy into it like a brand of blue jeans.
Fear of missing out or FoMO is "a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent".[2] This social angst[3] is characterized by "a desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_out
Slack has this to it, a team gets using Slack for their own purposes, the initiative started by someone that wonders why the company/team use Skype still.
Then other teams in the company want to be in on it, there is a party on Slack and they want to know all the gossip that goes down. Plus the Giphy memes.
The next thing is that you then find that it is no longer a private chat room, the guys in HR are reading this too so no longer can some things be said in the banter. So then you move your important chats off Slack and onto WhatsApp or somewhere where whomever the bad guys are, e.g. HR, will not be reading. Obviously Slack then becomes something that your manager uses to tell you what to do and no longer becomes a channel for convo for things peripheral to the tasks in hand. This is how I see Slack shaping up in the long term, it might as well be a MS product and you might as well get the MS product since it is better integrated to Office things.
(My firm is largely made up of old school unix hackers. I can see the appeal of something with a better UI and better integration than IRC for some, but when half the company are the type to run CLI IRC clients, it seems unnecessary.)
The fun thing is that Microsoft bought the product back in 2007 and sold it again pretty quickly but not before taking a bunch of the code and using it in their own group chat product (never as effectively as the original app, perhaps until now Slack have come along and shown them how valuable a product like that can be...)
Sure someone can replicate it, but I think you're underestimating the value of it. Like IRC could have the best features in the world but for the users who do not find it approachable it may as well not exist.
If they don't add something that is innovative I'm not so sure. I see companies and people who raved about it 10 months dropping it just as fast all around me.
We've delayed the inevitable by coming up with a file sharing and secrets policy for what can and cannot go over Slack.
Yes, it's IRC with a pretty interface. But that interface is comfy and useful. Juggling multiple devices is seamless. It keeps your history and you can search it.
Not rocket science, sure, but not bad either. It's a step up from IRC.
Not only that, on those days doing an IRC like server and chat client was a common programming exercise at the network programming classes on the university I attending.
If only luck made slack, then doesn't that mean Microsoft will need to be equally lucky to succeed?
Or it is "time", or marketing, or just because it is mobile first.
You could say the same about what's app, Instagram and others. Maybe it is not just about the big picture. Maybe they are successful because of small things like knowing they will always work when you need.
I'd like to see them succeed with skype first. I still can't message someone using a mac from a pc...
Let's take this somewhere. So what if it's just luck? What useful information can we glean from your dismissal?
I thought it was pretty well known that luck plays a significant factor in success. Are you disputing that?