4 ms·

> will piss people off Well it pisses off the people who aren't paying you anything. It probably pleases the people who were paying you, because now they don'

> will piss people off Well it pisses off the people who aren't paying you anything. It probably pleases the people who were paying you, because now they don't have to subsidise the people who aren't.

jylam 4y ago
Not that the price will go down. Now they subsidize shareholders, which is quite worse in my book.
- PedroBatista 4y ago
  Same way my customers subsidize my dinner, I’m sure shareholders didn’t get in for free.
soraminazuki 4y ago
Most paying customers are businesses. Those businesses are definitely not going to be pleased because they have people who personally depend on Slack's free plan. So, they've probably pissed off a significant number of paying customers.
- chillfox 4y ago
  Yeah, people tend to forget that companies are just groups of people working together.
kzrdude 4y ago
But the company was built on that user growth. They were reporting the numbers to the investors and claiming "2.???; 3. Profit" all along. Especially now, with recession coming (interests rise => expectations of profitability increase), it's unfortunately suddenly important to show real profits.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > But the company was built on that user growth. Yeah… and now they’re grown to a size where everyone knows the product and they don’t need to get people interested from scratch in the same way.
- pid-1 4y ago
  If subsiding free users isn't attracting more paying customers, then slashing free tiers is a no brainer though.
bayindirh 4y ago
> Well it pisses off the people who aren't paying you anything. These users will either move to on-premise systems or pay to a competitor now.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  If they’re willing to pay a competitor or self-host why wouldn’t they be willing to pay Slack?
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    Because self-hosting may be easier due to an in-house sysadmin who advocated this for a long time but turned down, or a competitor offer more value with a better price.
minusSeven 4y ago
>It probably pleases the people who were paying you, because now they don't have to subsidise the people who aren't. Bullshit. It's unclear communication and indecisiveness that pisses people off. If you can't afford it, there is no reason for you to give something for free and then later take it away. People who are paying will feel that samething will happen to them in other ways. You want consistency.
- akamaozu 4y ago
  You would prefer to never get a thing for free rather than have it at no cost for a brief period in time?
  - minusSeven 4y ago
    Having something for free but for a brief period of time is actually really inconvenient if you think about it. You are basically forced to move or find some alternative. You want consistency.

jylam 4y ago

Not that the price will go down. Now they subsidize shareholders, which is quite worse in my book.

PedroBatista 4y ago
Same way my customers subsidize my dinner, I’m sure shareholders didn’t get in for free.

soraminazuki 4y ago

Most paying customers are businesses. Those businesses are definitely not going to be pleased because they have people who personally depend on Slack's free plan. So, they've probably pissed off a significant number of paying customers.

chillfox 4y ago
Yeah, people tend to forget that companies are just groups of people working together.

kzrdude 4y ago

But the company was built on that user growth. They were reporting the numbers to the investors and claiming "2.???; 3. Profit" all along. Especially now, with recession coming (interests rise => expectations of profitability increase), it's unfortunately suddenly important to show real profits.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> But the company was built on that user growth. Yeah… and now they’re grown to a size where everyone knows the product and they don’t need to get people interested from scratch in the same way.
pid-1 4y ago
If subsiding free users isn't attracting more paying customers, then slashing free tiers is a no brainer though.

bayindirh 4y ago

> Well it pisses off the people who aren't paying you anything. These users will either move to on-premise systems or pay to a competitor now.

chrisseaton 4y ago
If they’re willing to pay a competitor or self-host why wouldn’t they be willing to pay Slack?
- bayindirh 4y ago
  Because self-hosting may be easier due to an in-house sysadmin who advocated this for a long time but turned down, or a competitor offer more value with a better price.

minusSeven 4y ago

>It probably pleases the people who were paying you, because now they don't have to subsidise the people who aren't. Bullshit. It's unclear communication and indecisiveness that pisses people off. If you can't afford it, there is no reason for you to give something for free and then later take it away. People who are paying will feel that samething will happen to them in other ways. You want consistency.

akamaozu 4y ago
You would prefer to never get a thing for free rather than have it at no cost for a brief period in time?
- minusSeven 4y ago
  Having something for free but for a brief period of time is actually really inconvenient if you think about it. You are basically forced to move or find some alternative. You want consistency.