5 ms·
If Slack is better than Teams and boosts productivity enough to be worth the cost, why wouldn't you pay money for it? I'm not saying this is the case, but just
by throwaway201103 6y ago
If Slack is better than Teams and boosts productivity enough to be worth the cost, why wouldn't you pay money for it?
I'm not saying this is the case, but just because Teams is free doesn't mean people won't pay for a better alternative.
Clearly there are examples of free office software suites that nobody uses because Office365 is so much better that it's worth the cost.
- otabdeveloper4 6y agoSlack just isn't good enough. It's better than Teams, somewhat, but that's about it. (Despite having both Teams and Slack the people at my workplace keep spontaneously switching to Telegram because it's cross-platform and very fast, despite being the worse chat app on every feature metric. Yes, it turns out performance and portability is a huge value proposition for endusers if you actually give them the choice.)
- AznHisoka 6y agoBecause it’s not measurable and it’s hard to argue with your CIO that using Slack will save you $xxx000 in productivity costs. It also doesn’t register a “hair on fire” problem. Slack still has the preconceived notion of being a chat app. And those are not worth the huge investment, compared to problems that truly keep you awake at night ie. Cybersecurity
- laichzeit0 6y agoBingo. Teams is “good enough” that any marginal advantage of Slack is outweighed by Teams not costing a cent.