However, complexity of a product does (or at least should) inform risk of future competitors. The market for instant messaging systems is relatively low-cost to enter, has lots of serious players, and seems to be moving towards a subscription model, which is easier to disrupt.
Perhaps a free protocol will win sufficient mindshare to commoditise the market, though I'm not optimistic - most players' profitability rely on walled gardens.
Either way, the market is replete with its varied biases, unfounded optimism, and information asymmetry.
I’ve got nothing against Slack, but they are just another Snapchat.
They provide a useful service, don’t get me wrong, but suffers from the same disease as many other software companies that grew via venture investment.
The market is more often correct about future earnings over any meaningful window than any individual on Hacker News.
They're both easily replaceable communication services.
In case you didn't know, Oracle has lock-in over their customers because their platforms expose proprietary features not delivered by competitors, or because they have certifications demanded by law in certain industries.
The cost of switching from Slack to something else is insignificant and there's nothing that Slack can do to prevent competitors from emerging, short of burning cash to acquire them like they did with Hipchat.
Slack does not even target the market of Oracle, because big enterprises prefer and even require on-site solutions. I've worked with German companies threatening to fire employees if Skype or Slack were found on company owned computers.
Comparing Slack with Oracle is like comparing Snapchat with Microsoft Exchange.