5 ms·

The cost of migrating away from something like slack for an enterprise org is enormous compared to what it costs. Teams might have parity in a vacuum, but ever

The cost of migrating away from something like slack for an enterprise org is enormous compared to what it costs. Teams might have parity in a vacuum, but everyone already knows what slack is and how to use it, including people you might hire in the future.

jvagner 8y ago
Two years ago a company we were at had Slack and it was used vigorously. They hit a user limit and couldn't get the CEO to pony up whatever it cost to extend Slack. (This company was the kind of company that had unlimited budgets for conferences and sales calls, but could hardly ever get a CC# for a dev team need...) They switched to MS Teams, but at least two years ago, it felt unusable. Or, the team's Slackness couldn't translate. No one used it. Neither Slack nor MS made money in this exchange. Maybe Teams has gotten better and more usable, but I wonder if Teams is taking off in business environments, whereas Slack definitely is more common in tech environments?
- freewilly1040 8y ago
  Your example demonstrates my point. Your CEO made a terrible decision in making you switch. Your co spent much more paying people to migrate to something worse than it would have spent just ponying up for the license.
  - jvagner 8y ago
    Agreed. But if Teams comes with Office365, Slack may have trouble getting CEOs to pay more per-user monthly fees. And I pay for both Office365 and G Suite at my business, and Google just invited me to Currents. I know better than to dump something like Slack for any new (like, first 3 years) Google product, but... Slack's getting some real competition.
    - ilikehurdles 8y ago
      This is the first I heard of Currents, but Google naming their Yammer-clone replacement for G+ after an already-failed Google product is really setting themselves up for success.
    - freewilly1040 8y ago
      That’s fair and I agree that’s their biggest competitive threat. But investment wise that downside is mitigated by the possibility of being acquired
- cco 8y ago
  Anecdotally did your team's productivity or quality of work suffer to a large extent after moving to Teams?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I would guess that the choice of chat tool has almost no impact on productivity or quality.
    - cco 8y ago
      That is mostly my thought as well, meaning that the parent's boss made the right move in saving money with no loss in productivity.
tw04 8y ago
To be blunt: if someone who knows slack can't figure out teams, we won't be hiring them. It's a chat app, not a new programming language.

jvagner 8y ago

Two years ago a company we were at had Slack and it was used vigorously. They hit a user limit and couldn't get the CEO to pony up whatever it cost to extend Slack. (This company was the kind of company that had unlimited budgets for conferences and sales calls, but could hardly ever get a CC# for a dev team need...) They switched to MS Teams, but at least two years ago, it felt unusable. Or, the team's Slackness couldn't translate. No one used it. Neither Slack nor MS made money in this exchange. Maybe Teams has gotten better and more usable, but I wonder if Teams is taking off in business environments, whereas Slack definitely is more common in tech environments?

freewilly1040 8y ago
Your example demonstrates my point. Your CEO made a terrible decision in making you switch. Your co spent much more paying people to migrate to something worse than it would have spent just ponying up for the license.
- jvagner 8y ago
  Agreed. But if Teams comes with Office365, Slack may have trouble getting CEOs to pay more per-user monthly fees. And I pay for both Office365 and G Suite at my business, and Google just invited me to Currents. I know better than to dump something like Slack for any new (like, first 3 years) Google product, but... Slack's getting some real competition.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    This is the first I heard of Currents, but Google naming their Yammer-clone replacement for G+ after an already-failed Google product is really setting themselves up for success.
  - freewilly1040 8y ago
    That’s fair and I agree that’s their biggest competitive threat. But investment wise that downside is mitigated by the possibility of being acquired
cco 8y ago
Anecdotally did your team's productivity or quality of work suffer to a large extent after moving to Teams?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I would guess that the choice of chat tool has almost no impact on productivity or quality.
  - cco 8y ago
    That is mostly my thought as well, meaning that the parent's boss made the right move in saving money with no loss in productivity.

tw04 8y ago

To be blunt: if someone who knows slack can't figure out teams, we won't be hiring them. It's a chat app, not a new programming language.