3 ms·
What changed recently that hadn't been the case for past years that made them add these new measures? A true, earnest apology would at least touch on the justif
by kodablah 8y ago
What changed recently that hadn't been the case for past years that made them add these new measures? A true, earnest apology would at least touch on the justifications for the changes more than just "become legal". But I understand that, sadly, that kind of transparency is a bit much to ask of any company these days. Still curious though if it was just an internal decision or spurred via government/legal threat/request.
- gk1 8y agoThree or four years ago I helped investigate application usage from embargoed countries as part of an acquisition. The acquirer was performing due diligence, and this was a liability they needed to assess. So, to answer your question, I doubt anything serious changed outside of Slack. Inside, however, maybe they got a new legal team that flagged this as a liability, or they're getting serious about compliance, or they're preparing for an IPO[1], or whatever... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/07/slack-has-hired-goldman-sachs-for-2019-ipo.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/07/slack-has-hired-goldman-sach...
- chomp 8y agoI worked at a couple companies where these "sudden pushes" to knock out embargoed countries were made. They both came when new legal counsel joined the staff. It's very clear to me that this is some housekeeping attached to their IPO.
- epc 8y agoThe US elected Donald Trump as President, who then reversed the Obama Administration approach to Iran and reimposed sanctions. With respect to Slack, if they intend to IPO in 2019 they may be going through a due diligence checklist as others have suggested.
- austenallred 8y agoPreparing to IPO would be my guess