35 ms·

> We switched from Hipchat and we didn't really have a good reason - it just felt better. This is interesting. How many employees are using it? Slack costs 4 t

by hanley 12y ago

> We switched from Hipchat and we didn't really have a good reason - it just felt better. This is interesting. How many employees are using it? Slack costs 4 times as much as HipChat ($8/user/month vs. $2/user/month) so it seems silly to jump to a much more expensive product for no reason.

rwc 12y ago
I made the same jump. Can't understate the value of "it just felt better" -- everybody who uses Slack in our organization has the same reaction, and it's dramatically increased desire to use the application. And, of course, buy-in is half the battle with getting these products to achieve their goal.
tg3 12y ago
In my experience, if a tool provides any business value at all, worrying about $6/employee is a complete waste of time. If Slack saves each employee 6 minutes per month then it has paid for itself. Developer tools generally charge far too little for their offerings - price point is probably not even a consideration for most companies, as long as its within an acceptable band.
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  > If Slack saves each employee 6 minutes per month then it has paid for itself. But does it [compared to HipChat]? (asking as someone who has used HipChat but never Slack)
  - m3g0ga0 12y ago
    I use both on a regular basis, because our company has split personalities about which chat client is best. I don't think it's meaningfully different or better than HipChat. The most obvious differences are that it automatically retries sending messages if your network glitches, and that it's proponents are more irrationally positive than HipChat's. They're interchangeable. People who argue otherwise don't have enough actual work to do.
  - tg3 12y ago
    But my point is that doing that analysis is pointless, because the dollar amount is so low. The difference in price will never be more than a rounding error in a company's expenses, so it's not worth worrying about. If someone at the company wants it, price point shouldn't be what's keeping the company from using it.

by hanley 12y ago

rwc 12y ago

I made the same jump. Can't understate the value of "it just felt better" -- everybody who uses Slack in our organization has the same reaction, and it's dramatically increased desire to use the application. And, of course, buy-in is half the battle with getting these products to achieve their goal.

tg3 12y ago

In my experience, if a tool provides any business value at all, worrying about $6/employee is a complete waste of time. If Slack saves each employee 6 minutes per month then it has paid for itself. Developer tools generally charge far too little for their offerings - price point is probably not even a consideration for most companies, as long as its within an acceptable band.

frostmatthew 12y ago
> If Slack saves each employee 6 minutes per month then it has paid for itself. But does it [compared to HipChat]? (asking as someone who has used HipChat but never Slack)
- m3g0ga0 12y ago
  I use both on a regular basis, because our company has split personalities about which chat client is best. I don't think it's meaningfully different or better than HipChat. The most obvious differences are that it automatically retries sending messages if your network glitches, and that it's proponents are more irrationally positive than HipChat's. They're interchangeable. People who argue otherwise don't have enough actual work to do.
- tg3 12y ago
  But my point is that doing that analysis is pointless, because the dollar amount is so low. The difference in price will never be more than a rounding error in a company's expenses, so it's not worth worrying about. If someone at the company wants it, price point shouldn't be what's keeping the company from using it.