4 ms·

There are viable alternatives to Skype. I've been using Slack (https://slack.com/ https://slack.com/) for a while too... it does everything useful that you cou

There are viable alternatives to Skype. I've been using Slack (https://slack.com/ https://slack.com/) for a while too... it does everything useful that you could ask of a chat application and works very much like IRC worked back in the day. Everything it doesn't do natively, there's an integration for, just like with IRC bots. You can do: - Private chat with one or more parties - Open Group chat via channels (both private and public channels) - Voice/Video via numerous integrations including Bluejeans, Appear.in, Skype, Hangouts, you name it. - ChatOps via services like IFTT & Zapier or even your own custom bridge into your network. - Get notifications right in Slack from your source control, build servers, JIRA, Confluence and any number of other services via webhook integrations. - A billion other wicked cool integrations (https://slack.com/apps https://slack.com/apps) that allow you to do just about anything, including the eternally useless, often inappropriate and highly amusing Giphy. - It's free(ish)... the featureset is restricted on the free account, but even with the free account it has enough to be seriously useful to even loosely defined teams of adhoc members. For enterprise requirements there is a small per user/per month charge which unlocks a wealth of enterprise ready features. - It's archivable & searchable Highly recommended and well worth a look for small and large teams alike. It's more targeted at teams, but for circles of friends, it works nicely too. Because of the way it's structured, it works more like a web based, centrally hosted IRC server than Skype, as such it doesn't really have the same network effect, but it's so much more flexible than Skype in every other respect.

manyxcxi 11y ago
Slack is nice and very useful. As you mention there are a ton of integrations- there's cool new uses every day, but I don't see why it would need to be part of your audio/video/conference flow other than as links to join or something of the sort. For instance, to get everyone into a Join.Me conference I just copy/paste the link into the channel and people connect from their browser/desktop app/phone app- but it would've been the same with email. I feel like the audio/video is the one place where Slack doesn't really add value to the flow, other than what Slack already does- makes it easier to give the connection info to your group/channel.
bad_user 11y ago
> It's free(ish) The free tier has a very limited history, which defeats the point of using Slack, since you lose your history. And there's really no point in using Slack if you don't have a history you can rely on, might as well use IRC. And once you start paying, $7-$15 per user/month is not what I'd call cheap. It's cheap compared to a salary, but such costs pile up. > Voice/Video via numerous integrations including Bluejeans, Appear.in, Skype, Hangouts, you name it. Which is another way of saying that it doesn't solve the problems that Skype does, so it's not an alternative.
- kuschku 11y ago
  > might as well use IRC. Worse: For IRC you can use quassel (self-hosted) or IRCCloud (4$/month). So with IRC you get more, but even cheaper.
  - balabaster 11y ago
    The problem with IRC is that the plugins aren't as discoverable and more of a pain in the neck to integrate. When you're not in channel on IRC, you don't have access to anything that was said prior to joining the channel which means you don't even have any immediate history, or context to a conversation that is ongoing when you join. At least with Slack you have 10,000 messages of history, which is at least enough to give you the context of the discussion. Also while probably irrelevant on a technical level, it's just not as pretty and user friendly as Slack.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      All these issues you mentioned are solved by using IRCCloud or Quassel – I currently have a backlog for the channels I’m in via Quassel back to 2014 – available in the app, over the webapp, via the program on Windows, Mac and Linux. The only issue with IRC is discoverability.
- balabaster 11y ago
  For most people, the limited history isn't really an issue. For most enterprise tools you're looking at paying thousands to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In comparison, the cost to get the enterprise features out of Slack is a drop in the ocean. The joy of adhoc plugins is that you don't need any specific one to get the benefits. It's like a directory of alternatives to Skype that all do an appropriate job. It's more discoverable than say trying to find an alternative to Skype via a Google search. New apps/integrations are added daily, giving you visibility to alternatives every day.
untog 11y ago
I don't know about anyone else, but 90% of my use of Skype is for voice or video calls. There's a lot of competition out there for chat apps, but sadly very little for voice/video (network effect rules all, of course)
jjawssd 11y ago
Slack is not a Skype replacement
- criddell 11y ago
  It replaces the text messaging part which is the only part of Skype I use. I'm slowly trying to convince my coworkers to move from Skype to our Slack instance.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

manyxcxi 11y ago

Slack is nice and very useful. As you mention there are a ton of integrations- there's cool new uses every day, but I don't see why it would need to be part of your audio/video/conference flow other than as links to join or something of the sort. For instance, to get everyone into a Join.Me conference I just copy/paste the link into the channel and people connect from their browser/desktop app/phone app- but it would've been the same with email. I feel like the audio/video is the one place where Slack doesn't really add value to the flow, other than what Slack already does- makes it easier to give the connection info to your group/channel.

bad_user 11y ago

> It's free(ish) The free tier has a very limited history, which defeats the point of using Slack, since you lose your history. And there's really no point in using Slack if you don't have a history you can rely on, might as well use IRC. And once you start paying, $7-$15 per user/month is not what I'd call cheap. It's cheap compared to a salary, but such costs pile up. > Voice/Video via numerous integrations including Bluejeans, Appear.in, Skype, Hangouts, you name it. Which is another way of saying that it doesn't solve the problems that Skype does, so it's not an alternative.

kuschku 11y ago
> might as well use IRC. Worse: For IRC you can use quassel (self-hosted) or IRCCloud (4$/month). So with IRC you get more, but even cheaper.
- balabaster 11y ago
  The problem with IRC is that the plugins aren't as discoverable and more of a pain in the neck to integrate. When you're not in channel on IRC, you don't have access to anything that was said prior to joining the channel which means you don't even have any immediate history, or context to a conversation that is ongoing when you join. At least with Slack you have 10,000 messages of history, which is at least enough to give you the context of the discussion. Also while probably irrelevant on a technical level, it's just not as pretty and user friendly as Slack.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    All these issues you mentioned are solved by using IRCCloud or Quassel – I currently have a backlog for the channels I’m in via Quassel back to 2014 – available in the app, over the webapp, via the program on Windows, Mac and Linux. The only issue with IRC is discoverability.
balabaster 11y ago
For most people, the limited history isn't really an issue. For most enterprise tools you're looking at paying thousands to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In comparison, the cost to get the enterprise features out of Slack is a drop in the ocean. The joy of adhoc plugins is that you don't need any specific one to get the benefits. It's like a directory of alternatives to Skype that all do an appropriate job. It's more discoverable than say trying to find an alternative to Skype via a Google search. New apps/integrations are added daily, giving you visibility to alternatives every day.

untog 11y ago

I don't know about anyone else, but 90% of my use of Skype is for voice or video calls. There's a lot of competition out there for chat apps, but sadly very little for voice/video (network effect rules all, of course)

jjawssd 11y ago

Slack is not a Skype replacement

criddell 11y ago
It replaces the text messaging part which is the only part of Skype I use. I'm slowly trying to convince my coworkers to move from Skype to our Slack instance.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]