> Would we still have Twitter? Reddit? Steam? Whatsapp? How many of those broke old workflows to introduce new ones with no clear benefits? But that's not th

> Would we still have Twitter? Reddit? Steam? Whatsapp? How many of those broke old workflows to introduce new ones with no clear benefits? But that's not the point. We're not talking here about broad services like Reddit, Twitter, or Steam. We're talking about something more akin to a libary. You shouldn't break interfaces in a library without a strong, compelling reason. Do things need to change eventually? Absolutely. Do they need to change today, because someone decided that the old workflows they don't like need to break for everyone? Maybe not. There's perhaps some room between the two. It's been my experience that business software often represents a deep investment in a given workflow. Sometimes to the point where businesses are willing to spend a great deal of money to preserve those workflows and integrate new things into them - MuleSoft springs to mind. Which is not to say that you're wrong. It's absolutely possible to develop new, improved software that's better in critical ways. Sometimes people and businesses are willing to put up with temporary regressions and inconveniences to gain substantial improvements. To use the above comparison, I've seen artists invest the time in learning how to draw all over again in order to jump from paper to digital. What Slack has done is take away what was a perfectly functional workflow for many people. This doesn't look like a temporary regression or inconvenience. This looks like a permanent, hard break without substantial obvious benefits for people who used the old workflow. Communicating with users in a way that telegraphs very clearly that Slack doesn't care at all is just gilding the lily.