5 ms·

There are high switching costs. Once everyone in your 1000+ company is using it, its hard to get them all to switch to another chat product. You got saved conv

There are high switching costs. Once everyone in your 1000+ company is using it, its hard to get them all to switch to another chat product. You got saved conversations, workflows, integrations, etc.

grogenaut 8y ago
I recently audited our developer integration with slack, it's about 15-20 hooks. We estimated it would take us a few dev weeks max to replace them. The bigger cost is people's preference for a familiar tool and the gnashing of teeth. It's actually their nice webhook design and apis that make it easy to move. And no if you're reading this and know who I am we aren't considering replacing it, chillaxe.
user5994461 8y ago
There is no switching costs involved. I am in one of the big corporation who's gone through 5 different chat clients. It could decide overnight that one of them must die and it wouldn't matter. It's one of the lowest switching costs. A few weeks lost to redo the integrations that really matter. That's about it. Zero benefit in the end, they're all a basic chat with some fanciness of top. It's just time wasted for all the users who hates change and have to learn a new tool for no benefit.
- pmart123 8y ago
  Do you think Slack or Github has higher switching costs?
  - user5994461 8y ago
    Slack for sure. All the employees are going to be pissed off for months and lose a lot of productivity while they learn the new UI. Git only impacts developers, a smaller user base, who can figure out how to use a new website. That being said. They are both easy switch. Just need to update the URL to the new tool.
sfifs 8y ago
Work in a company with ~100k magnitude of employees that has been through multiple chat and collaboration apps over a decade. There is no switching delays for employees because these are basically deployed as hard cut over. There is pre-switching cost for the company because those integrations are what IT is basically paid to fix as part of cut over.

There are high switching costs. Once everyone in your 1000+ company is using it, its hard to get them all to switch to another chat product. You got saved conversations, workflows, integrations, etc.

grogenaut 8y ago

I recently audited our developer integration with slack, it's about 15-20 hooks. We estimated it would take us a few dev weeks max to replace them. The bigger cost is people's preference for a familiar tool and the gnashing of teeth. It's actually their nice webhook design and apis that make it easy to move. And no if you're reading this and know who I am we aren't considering replacing it, chillaxe.

user5994461 8y ago

There is no switching costs involved. I am in one of the big corporation who's gone through 5 different chat clients. It could decide overnight that one of them must die and it wouldn't matter. It's one of the lowest switching costs. A few weeks lost to redo the integrations that really matter. That's about it. Zero benefit in the end, they're all a basic chat with some fanciness of top. It's just time wasted for all the users who hates change and have to learn a new tool for no benefit.

pmart123 8y ago
Do you think Slack or Github has higher switching costs?
- user5994461 8y ago
  Slack for sure. All the employees are going to be pissed off for months and lose a lot of productivity while they learn the new UI. Git only impacts developers, a smaller user base, who can figure out how to use a new website. That being said. They are both easy switch. Just need to update the URL to the new tool.

sfifs 8y ago

Work in a company with ~100k magnitude of employees that has been through multiple chat and collaboration apps over a decade. There is no switching delays for employees because these are basically deployed as hard cut over. There is pre-switching cost for the company because those integrations are what IT is basically paid to fix as part of cut over.