4 ms·

low volume users unprepared to pay anything to Slack ever are low value users. There is an argument for a more granular pricing, but if I were Slack I would al

by rtpg 4y ago

low volume users unprepared to pay anything to Slack ever are low value users. There is an argument for a more granular pricing, but if I were Slack I would also want to jettison the "community" slacks

ThunderSizzle 4y ago
Low value users should be okay though, because they should also be low-cost users.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
californical 4y ago
I use Slack’s free version in a 2-person workspace with just my partner. We use it to message each other during the day. It probably costs Slack almost nothing, but now we’re getting somewhat cut-off. I’ve also advocated for Slack at my company of several hundred employees, at multiple previous companies, and would’ve continued to at future companies. Mostly because they’ve had goodwill and been a joy to use in my personal life. But now I’m mad at them, and going to move to a new chat platform, with my partner, on our tiny little instance. Will me being mad at Slack affect their bottom line? Probably not today… but when more people like me have moved past Slack and see it as old annoying tech, maybe it’ll start to have an affect. We’ll see.
- rtpg 4y ago
  Sure, I get the theory. My glib response is that I do not believe a business tool kicking out "freeloaders" (in the nicest sense of the term) is a factor to me using it for a business. Why would I care? I want a communication tool for a business! Having to pay for loss leading is annoying! Free tiers exist to help with onboarding and testing, the existence of free plans that allow more or less indefinite usage is an obvious mistake for something like Slack IMO. I think if Slack had shown up with a free plan at 90 days history (really, 90 days/5 GB would be the "reall" thing), then people wouldn't bat an eye. It feels obvious that the solution here would be to grandfather old workspaces into the old model but .. shrug.

by rtpg 4y ago

ThunderSizzle 4y ago

Low value users should be okay though, because they should also be low-cost users.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

californical 4y ago

I use Slack’s free version in a 2-person workspace with just my partner. We use it to message each other during the day. It probably costs Slack almost nothing, but now we’re getting somewhat cut-off. I’ve also advocated for Slack at my company of several hundred employees, at multiple previous companies, and would’ve continued to at future companies. Mostly because they’ve had goodwill and been a joy to use in my personal life. But now I’m mad at them, and going to move to a new chat platform, with my partner, on our tiny little instance. Will me being mad at Slack affect their bottom line? Probably not today… but when more people like me have moved past Slack and see it as old annoying tech, maybe it’ll start to have an affect. We’ll see.

rtpg 4y ago
Sure, I get the theory. My glib response is that I do not believe a business tool kicking out "freeloaders" (in the nicest sense of the term) is a factor to me using it for a business. Why would I care? I want a communication tool for a business! Having to pay for loss leading is annoying! Free tiers exist to help with onboarding and testing, the existence of free plans that allow more or less indefinite usage is an obvious mistake for something like Slack IMO. I think if Slack had shown up with a free plan at 90 days history (really, 90 days/5 GB would be the "reall" thing), then people wouldn't bat an eye. It feels obvious that the solution here would be to grandfather old workspaces into the old model but .. shrug.