3 ms·

I do see that the person posting on Twitter may have a different use case than me. But what keeps my small business on Slack, even though we have a perfectly go

I do see that the person posting on Twitter may have a different use case than me. But what keeps my small business on Slack, even though we have a perfectly good replacement (Chat) baked right into our Google Workspaces account, is inter-company communication. Slack isn't ubiquitous, but it's common enough that we have multiple clients who use it. If we terminated our Slack Pro account, we wouldn't have a way of continuing to chat and DM with those clients without requiring them to establish new accounts on an unfamiliar service, just so they can work with this one vendor (us).

akmarinov 4y ago
Chat is horrible, it’s really barebones and doesn’t have any features. Also it’s been like that for about 4 years now, with very little development or investment by Google, so that should tell you that it’ll just get cut one day.
briffle 4y ago
If you setup Matrix, couldn't you then just use the slack bridge? https://matrix.org/docs/projects/bridge/matrix-appservice-slack https://matrix.org/docs/projects/bridge/matrix-appservice-sl...
- oldandboring 4y ago
  I could be wrong but I think the issue is that I'd be bridging Matrix to my Slack organization, which I would be downgrading to 'Free', and so any communication that happens with external people via the Slack/Matrix bridge will be doing so via the crippled 'Free' account. As it pertains to inter-company communication, 'Pro' allows for channels and group chats, whereas 'Free' only allows one-on-one communication. So, again I could be misunderstanding, but I don't think much is really gained here, relative to (say) implementing Matrix for internal use and also asking employees to keep Slack running for certain external chats.
- judge2020 4y ago
  A slack bridge might be too invasive for a company looking to prevent any data loss, ie. a Rockstar Games situation. If they can, they'll require linked companies to use the official client, even if it costs something.

akmarinov 4y ago

Chat is horrible, it’s really barebones and doesn’t have any features. Also it’s been like that for about 4 years now, with very little development or investment by Google, so that should tell you that it’ll just get cut one day.

briffle 4y ago

If you setup Matrix, couldn't you then just use the slack bridge? https://matrix.org/docs/projects/bridge/matrix-appservice-slack https://matrix.org/docs/projects/bridge/matrix-appservice-sl...

oldandboring 4y ago
I could be wrong but I think the issue is that I'd be bridging Matrix to my Slack organization, which I would be downgrading to 'Free', and so any communication that happens with external people via the Slack/Matrix bridge will be doing so via the crippled 'Free' account. As it pertains to inter-company communication, 'Pro' allows for channels and group chats, whereas 'Free' only allows one-on-one communication. So, again I could be misunderstanding, but I don't think much is really gained here, relative to (say) implementing Matrix for internal use and also asking employees to keep Slack running for certain external chats.
judge2020 4y ago
A slack bridge might be too invasive for a company looking to prevent any data loss, ie. a Rockstar Games situation. If they can, they'll require linked companies to use the official client, even if it costs something.