36 ms·
I see your point. But at Uber's scale I can see the business need for a custom chat app. Most third party chat apps are bloated, both the cheap and expensive o
by andyp-kw 5y ago
I see your point.
But at Uber's scale I can see the business need for a custom chat app. Most third party chat apps are bloated, both the cheap and expensive ones. Plus there's the need for custom integrations.
- bko 5y agoI used to work at a large bank and they operated perfectly fine with Window's messenger. As does every other bank in the US, despite having tens if not hundred of thousands of employees. Some things require more specialized features like trade tickets (which Bloomberg does), but for chatting, you're not gonna be able to build a better solution than already exists. And if you can, then you should spin that off into its own business like Goldman did with Symphony [0] The nice thing about being a client is that they support all this stuff and it gets better over time. Also something like Slack is absurdly cheap compared to the usefulness and productivity it provides. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_Communication
- oarsinsync 5y ago> but for chatting, you're not gonna be able to build a better solution than already exists. And if you can, then you should spin that off into its own business like Goldman did with Symphony The implication that Symphony is a better solution for chatting than already exists / existed. As a (non-trading) user of the platform, I strongly disagree. I don't know what the traders think, but I'd hope there's a USP in there for them besides "it's cheaper than a Bloomberg seat."