3 ms·

That’s not entirely true. Most companies use multiple products even if they could use less. As an example, most companies using Zoom also use Slack. So they d

by pjerem 3y ago

That’s not entirely true. Most companies use multiple products even if they could use less. As an example, most companies using Zoom also use Slack. So they don’t use all the slack features although they could. Maybe because they think, for whatever reason, Zoom is better at conf call and Slack is better as chat application. The same is true with Teams, that basically any company owning office licences get for free and still prefer using something else (because it’s garbage). So if you can make a chat app that can make Slack look garbage as a chat app, you don’t need feature parity. Maybe adding an integration to external conf call services like Jitsi or Zoom can be enough for your potential customers, especially if they already pay for those.

lolinder 3y ago
I use Slack huddles regularly even though my company also has Zoom and Google Meet, and would be ticked off if my company tried to replace Slack with something that was missing voice. Slack's huddles are about eliminating the friction for hopping on a voice call. There's no waiting time for Zoom to start, no camera check, no "join with computer audio". You can go from a synchronous text-based conversation to a voice call in two seconds flat, as soon as it becomes obvious that's what is needed. That is the value proposition of Slack huddles, and external tools can't replace that.
- holmesworcester 3y ago
  (Quiet founder here.) I think both this point and OP's point can be true, depending on what the value is that people get from switching from Slack to a secure alternative. (And yes I've also been in teams that usually used Zoom or Meet but where the convenience of quick 1:1 calls in Slack was really nice!) If a team is sufficiently desperate (as some we've talked to are) for something with end-to-end encryption but specific advanced moderation features that Signal lacks, then using Zoom, Meet, Signal, or some other video calling solution is fine. Sure it will be annoying, but there's a clear benefit the organization gets in return. And yes, most teams do not get enough value from e2ee (or don't yet believe that they do) that giving up on the frictionlessness of a Slack huddle is worth it for them. If we find product-market fit with an enthusastic niche of teams that need security, we'll be able to grow from there and address their needs for video calls too. If we can't find some users who are passionate about the particular advantages of what we're offering and willing to trade some features and convenience for those advantages, we're toast anyway :) (But we think we've found some!)
digging 3y ago
> because it’s garbage I wish my company believed this.

by pjerem 3y ago

lolinder 3y ago

I use Slack huddles regularly even though my company also has Zoom and Google Meet, and would be ticked off if my company tried to replace Slack with something that was missing voice. Slack's huddles are about eliminating the friction for hopping on a voice call. There's no waiting time for Zoom to start, no camera check, no "join with computer audio". You can go from a synchronous text-based conversation to a voice call in two seconds flat, as soon as it becomes obvious that's what is needed. That is the value proposition of Slack huddles, and external tools can't replace that.

holmesworcester 3y ago
(Quiet founder here.) I think both this point and OP's point can be true, depending on what the value is that people get from switching from Slack to a secure alternative. (And yes I've also been in teams that usually used Zoom or Meet but where the convenience of quick 1:1 calls in Slack was really nice!) If a team is sufficiently desperate (as some we've talked to are) for something with end-to-end encryption but specific advanced moderation features that Signal lacks, then using Zoom, Meet, Signal, or some other video calling solution is fine. Sure it will be annoying, but there's a clear benefit the organization gets in return. And yes, most teams do not get enough value from e2ee (or don't yet believe that they do) that giving up on the frictionlessness of a Slack huddle is worth it for them. If we find product-market fit with an enthusastic niche of teams that need security, we'll be able to grow from there and address their needs for video calls too. If we can't find some users who are passionate about the particular advantages of what we're offering and willing to trade some features and convenience for those advantages, we're toast anyway :) (But we think we've found some!)

digging 3y ago

> because it’s garbage I wish my company believed this.