3 ms·

Andrei Soroker on startups getting everything wrong

16 points by karjaluoto 11y ago

karjaluoto 11y ago
This part of the post alone, is pretty amusing: http://blog.officehours.io/content/images/2015/09/chat-with-stewart.png http://blog.officehours.io/content/images/2015/09/chat-with-...
marwann 11y ago
Interesting in many aspects. I've set up an SMS alert that reminds me each morning to "pay it forward". Andrei is right, helping people without asking for anything in return is actually the best way to get something in return. Also I like how Stewart Butterfield is kind of honest when trying kato. What I wonder is why he didn't try to hire the team for helping build Slack.
- karjaluoto 11y ago
  Andrei’s great—and kind of an open book. I’ve learned so much from him about building a distributed team and adapting when faced with hurdles. Plus, he’s willing to up-end any approach, just to see if something else works better. He’s perhaps the most software-agnostic guy I’ve met. Part of this, I think, relates to him trying out so many new products—in part to support other founders. I look upon the chat between Stewart and Andrei as an interesting historic document. Of course Stewart and his colleagues needed to check out the competition. That said, I know that selling the idea at the time was really difficult, with Kato. From what Andrei tells me, VCs largely didn’t believe in their vision for chat replacing email. A while after this interaction, those same VCs were all on Slack. If I were Andrei, I’d still be a little sore about that. He takes it differently, though, and knows it’s part of the deal. I think that’s pretty admirable. BTW: If you want another way to pay it forward, feel free to sign up on http://www.officehours.io http://www.officehours.io as an advisor.
  - marwann 11y ago
    The part about distributed teams might help our company as well. I wished I spoke Russian now! It's normal to check what the competition does, but in the case of a company performing really well, it's always of use to have the brightest people with you, not against; even when you know you can crush them with money & reputation.. I'll think about becoming an advisor, looks like a great way to have a better footprint on society.
    - karjaluoto 11y ago
      Speaking a few extra languages certainly would be handy. That said, I think there many ways to make distributed work. My thought is to only hire remote staff, from now on. It’s nice to have access to so many talented folks, and for them to be able to stay where they’re happy. And you’re right. Slack’s moves all seem well considered and impeccably executed. Stewart and his people appear to have a remarkable ability for exciting its user base. Thanks for looking at Officehours, and considering offering sessions. It’s pretty neat to watch people connect on there, and create new relationships. (It’s sort of surprising to see how even 10 minutes of one-on-one interaction can start to build something.)
Pyxl101 11y ago
Now I'm wondering what Slack did right. How did they wipe the floor with everyone? Were they the first company to really invest in the problem?
- karjaluoto 11y ago
  I’m not that well versed on the topic, so I can’t really say. That said, I’ll pass this link on to Andrei, and ask if he can share his thoughts on the matter. Alternately, you could get a one-on-one with him on Officehours, and get some more direct insight: https://officehours.io/people/abs https://officehours.io/people/abs
- rekoros 11y ago
  I've been asked this so many times, that I've summed it up on Quora, here: https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Slack-grown-so-quickly/answer/Andrei-Soroker https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Slack-grown-so-quickly/answer/... In short, Slack is the first company in this space that had, and used heavy artillery. Atlassian had heavy artillery for HipChat, but didn't use it. Slack is the reason no one will ever have to convince investors that team chat is "a thing"—and that's an enormous accomplishment.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    Thank you for replying!
  - jcrites 11y ago
    This raises an interesting meta-question for founders and investors. How can you differentiate ideas that are "just not that good" from ideas that could be amazing, but need adequate investment and execution? I never would have guessed that team chat would take off the way that Slack has. (Part of the challenge of differentiating ideas is that even bad ideas can seem OK when you use artillery on them.) (What I will be wondering about is:) Now that we know that team chat actually was a fantastic business opportunity, and the primary missing piece was that no one had executed on it well enough yet, what signs could we have looked for but missed to tell us that? And can we look for those signs in new opportunities?

16 points by karjaluoto 11y ago

This part of the post alone, is pretty amusing: http://blog.officehours.io/content/images/2015/09/chat-with-stewart.png http://blog.officehours.io/content/images/2015/09/chat-with-...

marwann 11y ago

Interesting in many aspects. I've set up an SMS alert that reminds me each morning to "pay it forward". Andrei is right, helping people without asking for anything in return is actually the best way to get something in return. Also I like how Stewart Butterfield is kind of honest when trying kato. What I wonder is why he didn't try to hire the team for helping build Slack.

karjaluoto 11y ago
Andrei’s great—and kind of an open book. I’ve learned so much from him about building a distributed team and adapting when faced with hurdles. Plus, he’s willing to up-end any approach, just to see if something else works better. He’s perhaps the most software-agnostic guy I’ve met. Part of this, I think, relates to him trying out so many new products—in part to support other founders. I look upon the chat between Stewart and Andrei as an interesting historic document. Of course Stewart and his colleagues needed to check out the competition. That said, I know that selling the idea at the time was really difficult, with Kato. From what Andrei tells me, VCs largely didn’t believe in their vision for chat replacing email. A while after this interaction, those same VCs were all on Slack. If I were Andrei, I’d still be a little sore about that. He takes it differently, though, and knows it’s part of the deal. I think that’s pretty admirable. BTW: If you want another way to pay it forward, feel free to sign up on http://www.officehours.io http://www.officehours.io as an advisor.
- marwann 11y ago
  The part about distributed teams might help our company as well. I wished I spoke Russian now! It's normal to check what the competition does, but in the case of a company performing really well, it's always of use to have the brightest people with you, not against; even when you know you can crush them with money & reputation.. I'll think about becoming an advisor, looks like a great way to have a better footprint on society.
  - karjaluoto 11y ago
    Speaking a few extra languages certainly would be handy. That said, I think there many ways to make distributed work. My thought is to only hire remote staff, from now on. It’s nice to have access to so many talented folks, and for them to be able to stay where they’re happy. And you’re right. Slack’s moves all seem well considered and impeccably executed. Stewart and his people appear to have a remarkable ability for exciting its user base. Thanks for looking at Officehours, and considering offering sessions. It’s pretty neat to watch people connect on there, and create new relationships. (It’s sort of surprising to see how even 10 minutes of one-on-one interaction can start to build something.)

Pyxl101 11y ago

Now I'm wondering what Slack did right. How did they wipe the floor with everyone? Were they the first company to really invest in the problem?

karjaluoto 11y ago
I’m not that well versed on the topic, so I can’t really say. That said, I’ll pass this link on to Andrei, and ask if he can share his thoughts on the matter. Alternately, you could get a one-on-one with him on Officehours, and get some more direct insight: https://officehours.io/people/abs https://officehours.io/people/abs
rekoros 11y ago
I've been asked this so many times, that I've summed it up on Quora, here: https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Slack-grown-so-quickly/answer/Andrei-Soroker https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Slack-grown-so-quickly/answer/... In short, Slack is the first company in this space that had, and used heavy artillery. Atlassian had heavy artillery for HipChat, but didn't use it. Slack is the reason no one will ever have to convince investors that team chat is "a thing"—and that's an enormous accomplishment.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  Thank you for replying!
- jcrites 11y ago
  This raises an interesting meta-question for founders and investors. How can you differentiate ideas that are "just not that good" from ideas that could be amazing, but need adequate investment and execution? I never would have guessed that team chat would take off the way that Slack has. (Part of the challenge of differentiating ideas is that even bad ideas can seem OK when you use artillery on them.) (What I will be wondering about is:) Now that we know that team chat actually was a fantastic business opportunity, and the primary missing piece was that no one had executed on it well enough yet, what signs could we have looked for but missed to tell us that? And can we look for those signs in new opportunities?