I think it's the same thing with Slack, Slack only exists because Microsoft teams is made by Microsoft.
I swear to God it's mostly a placebo effect, but you're like oh yeah we're using slack we're the cool kids now. Many companies will have a single breakaway team that uses slack just to feel cool.
But if $10 a month makes a developer happier she might produce another $500 in value.
Your team is just used to Slack.
At the same time , if it costs 2k in lost productivity to switch, it's easier to keep using Slack.
I agree Slack is better though. I can't imagine if I started a new team I'd fight for slack over teams though
Can you explain? I use Twitter daily (hourly) and haven't read anything that lessened my opinion of them. Are you talking about censorship / Trump stuff? Personally they have not gotten on my bad side with any of that.
> Slack only exists because Microsoft teams is made by Microsoft
I'm also not sure what you mean by this. Microsoft Teams exists because of Slack.
I see "current press sentiment" as an irrelevant factor. Just wait until some prominent right winger heads to Substack and the journalists start aiming their sights.
The point is, if I'm going to start a paid newsletter, am I willing to give up an extra 5% of my income for the same feature set?
The answer is hell no. Substack will have to lower their prices, and then the feature war will begin. Twitter will always have the upper hand given they can directly integrate newsletter sign up forms into twitter.
But hey, bureaucratic incompetence is endemic at Twitter, so they might screw up this obvious path to victory they have in front of them.
Ideally the entire reason you pay for this type of content is because you don't want to just read CNN. If Twitter is perceived as controlling your content anyway, why pay for it