3 ms·

Company I work for has grown to 10 people and the pricing per member things are getting out of hand. We had to drop some services, bc if there is a service that

by DocG 7y ago

Company I work for has grown to 10 people and the pricing per member things are getting out of hand. We had to drop some services, bc if there is a service that costs 10 per user for just one feature, it's they add up real quick (looking at you slack for example). Some services have free tier or special pricing if it's only couple of members, but once you exhaust that, you are dropped to full pricing. I think there is a opportunity for different pricing for growing companies between 5-25 people. It seems that this pay per member works for small companies, couple of people or huge ones. But if you are growing with limited revenue the costs are way too high while you are still also finding your market.

watt 7y ago
No reason to look at Slack like that. It may be well worth the price. When company really starts using Slack it replaces the whole communication system of company, think at the level of replacing the complete Exchange/Outlook system, the whole intra-company email. It's pretty big deal. And that's why they can charge that level of subscription.
- gibolt 7y ago
  Compared to a salary, it is nothing. If your company functions and people are more productive because of it, ~$80 a year is nothing.
  - hedora 7y ago
    I’d be more productive without slack. It’s useful for distributed teams, and for incident response, but basic messaging + jira/github + zoom cover those use cases better. Slack was OK before the bot stuff and integration with ldap/email groups landed. Now, it’s at least as spammy as email, except not searchable, the (non customizable) UI is worse, and the social norm is that you spend 100% of the day checking a firehose of broadcast messages and machine generated spam (in some teams, even after working hours).
- csomar 7y ago
  > When company really starts using Slack it replaces the whole communication system of company, think at the level of replacing the complete Exchange/Outlook system, the whole intra-company email. That's exactly why I dislike Slack. You lose the whole history of your communication because Slack history is not very navigable.

by DocG 7y ago

watt 7y ago

No reason to look at Slack like that. It may be well worth the price. When company really starts using Slack it replaces the whole communication system of company, think at the level of replacing the complete Exchange/Outlook system, the whole intra-company email. It's pretty big deal. And that's why they can charge that level of subscription.

gibolt 7y ago
Compared to a salary, it is nothing. If your company functions and people are more productive because of it, ~$80 a year is nothing.
- hedora 7y ago
  I’d be more productive without slack. It’s useful for distributed teams, and for incident response, but basic messaging + jira/github + zoom cover those use cases better. Slack was OK before the bot stuff and integration with ldap/email groups landed. Now, it’s at least as spammy as email, except not searchable, the (non customizable) UI is worse, and the social norm is that you spend 100% of the day checking a firehose of broadcast messages and machine generated spam (in some teams, even after working hours).
csomar 7y ago
> When company really starts using Slack it replaces the whole communication system of company, think at the level of replacing the complete Exchange/Outlook system, the whole intra-company email. That's exactly why I dislike Slack. You lose the whole history of your communication because Slack history is not very navigable.