5 ms·
Peter's point still holds. If the company has 100 employees, that is $7! For 10,000 employees, it comes to $700! His point is that it isn't really significant
by startupdiscuss 9y ago
Peter's point still holds.
If the company has 100 employees, that is $7!
For 10,000 employees, it comes to $700!
His point is that it isn't really significant. How can "catching" him on the single employee assumption be the response.
- Hupriene 9y agoThe number of companies for whom Chat SAAS is a major expense is probably pretty small. I think the refund is more important for how it impacts Slack than how it impacts its customers. As long as the refund is substantial enough to significantly impact Slack's bottom line, then I'm more inclined to believe that they are going to make a serious effort to avoid paying it in the future. That said, I'm not sure that refunding at this level represents a sufficient incentive.
- dwild 9y ago7$ for 5 minutes of downtime in a month? That seems good to me. 1 hour would be a better example I guess, 84$ for an hour of downtime, that seems to be low for the amount of work that "may" have been lost, but then, that's weird to depend on a chat software that much.
- Johnny555 9y agoI don't see what's weird about that -- before companies relied on chat, they relied on email -- in my company email can go down and people hardly notice, but a Slack outage is immediately met with cries of "Hey, are you having trouble with Slack!?". Before companies relied on email, they relied on phones. My company doesn't even provide desk phones for most staff, only Sales and other staff that need to make a lot of calls have them. So what's so weird about companies relying on Slack?