3 ms·
> Given A and B, if A were good enough, people would use A... What if B is better? What if both are good enough? Prior to Slack existing, lots of people who no
by randomsearch 11y ago
> Given A and B, if A were good enough, people would use A... What if B is better? What if both are good enough?
Prior to Slack existing, lots of people who now use Slack weren't using IRC, because Slack offers a lot more.
Everyone I know working in academia or on a startup that uses any kind of instant chat uses Slack. None of them previously used IRC for the same purpose.
And it's just _obvious_ why, once you've used Slack for a while. They're quite different -- IRC is a protocol for real-time discussion on the internet. Slack is a business tool that incorporates real-time discussion.
- rando289 11y ago> Prior to Slack existing, lots of people who now use Slack weren't using IRC, because Slack offers a lot more. Wow, going off the deep end here. Unless you are a time traveler, there is no way to not use IRC because of slack, 'prior to slack existing.'
- rando289 11y ago> it's just _obvious_ why Uh, nope. Most people use communication platforms due to network effects: because they were invited to use it, because their friends/coleagues use it. Slack is no different.
- KirinDave 11y agoConsidering Slack is a per-organization service with minimal cross talk between organizations, your premise seems flawed. I mean, Slack appeared on scene after many other technologies existed. People recommend it for their friends because it works well. There is no global network effect at play.
- csallen 11y agoI don't think his point needs Slack to have a global network effect built in. I'd assume that, usually, a small handful of people in an organization decide on using Slack. Once the choice is made, network effects lock members in. Assuming the average org has 20 people or so, probably 90% of Slack's users are probably thanks to network effects.