Google should build slack. Its a travesty how incredibly good their google workspace suite of tools is, and then google chat is what sits between it all. If it wasn't for the fact that google bungled an internal communication tool so badly, slack wouldn't even have to exist.
For the life of me I cannot understand why they after a decade, has let slack and teams become basically a duopoly in this space.
Source: I use google chat everyday, so its not just a "UI looks ugly thing". Literally nothing you think should work works. Ex: inviting outside collaborators to a shared channel, converting a private DM group into a channel, having public channels for community & private channels for internal work. Goes on and on.
And it's not just messaging. Google has a decades-long history of abandoning apps that don't make them billions, which means no-one with memory trusts them. Especially in their current "AI-everything or bust!" incarnation.
Such a great article. I love a good postmortem. I also had no idea of the chequered history of Google's messaging apps. I'd heard some of the names before, but being an iMessage and WhatsApp user, I'd just stuck with those mostly.
I don't think we should cheer on one of the largest companies in the world to build a product to get them even more enterprise stranglehold.
The praise for this monopoly is misdirected. Every single one of you, unless you're a significant GOOG shareholder, should be wanting for antitrust breakup of Google. They're putting pressure on your wages and other investments, and they're contributing to a ceiling for other startups and companies.
Google engineers are brilliant, but the corporation itself needs to be horizontally dismantled into several Googles that all compete with one another. (Not simply a vertical breakup along product lines, but rather the old-school "Ma Bell" style breakup that creates companies that then have to compete on the same offerings.)
A breakup would be good for GOOG investors too, because there's far more value locked up in the company and far too many opportunities left by the wayside.
"how incredibly good their google workspace suite of tools is" - is that a common sentiment on HN?
To me, Google Sheets is 10% of Excel on desktop (Mac), Slides are 5% of PowerPoint on desktop (Mac), and the integration between the two (copying and pasting linked charts from Excel to Powerpoint with formatting) makes it a completely non-starter to consider the Google alternatives as primary drivers.
I'm probably a power-user of both, granted, but I took for granted Sheets/Slides are still just toys compared to the real stuff, so curious if I'm missing something.
I've worked for years at companies that only use Google Sheets.
For 99% of people (sometimes we let Finance folks have an Excel license), it's more than enough. Google Apps Script is also reasonably useful, and the newer Smart Chips are a nice addition.
Competent is not the same as good. I can do the very basic things I need in Sheets, but the moment it needs more than =A1+B2 then it's uphill all the way. I also don't know how performant it is with larger datasets. I use Libre Office instead and despite the horrible UI it's been speedy and accurate. Desktop Excel is still king of the spreadsheets.
As for Slides, it's pure junk compared to the Keynote, but iCloud has it's own problems so I use this offline-only.
With the web version of Word 365 or whatever it's called, we've had so many problems syncing with OneDrive and sharing and whether it's showing the right version of the document that I'd be happy to never see it again, but their foothold in education means I'm forced to deal with it and provide technical support.
I am not a power user of either, and I absolutely detest when someone insists on using Excel. Sharing and collaboration is such a giant pain, and it's like going backwards in time to the 90's with e-mailed versions of files back and forth. Our org does not have a MS 365 license, so I'm unsure of Microsoft's web versions of Excel or how good they happen to be these days. I know users of it who complain though, and end up using it locally on their workstation like the olden days.
Most of my use is incredibly simple and used for project planning, inventory counting, lists of things that are split up into status/to-dos among multiple people, etc.
I've also never had a use for "Advanced" powerpoint, so the simplicity of google slides is a breath of fresh are as I only ever use the 10% most common feature set.
I actually get a bit of anxiety when someone sends me an excel sheet these days. It's usually going to be overly complex using clever methods, and that person is going to be a real pain to work with on iterating anything most of the time.
I've noted some very rare and specific times Excel is warranted though - such as our CFO creating complex financial modeling. For those uses I totally get that Google Sheets would be like working with handcuffs on.
Google Chat is definitely a product that could use more love, but it is situated in a specific internal landscape, and grows out of it. Slack is built for a very different context, and I doubt Google would build something like that. Google simply doesn't see the world the way someone who likes Slack would (and I also doubt a large co like Google could operate out of Slack).
Good is really good at engineering great software and really sucks at making them enterprise ready.
It's why they've been failing with GCP, Google Tables (shutdown now I guess), Analytics or any product that aims for enterprise consumption. Note: they are really good at making consumer softwares though (take the success of Google Photos or Gsearch)
Google isn't even good at engineering great software.
They have some good people working on some good projects. If you look at the relation between software-quality of their average product and number of developers they have... yeah I don't know. Maybe hiring tons of new-grads that are good at leetcode and then forcing them to use golang... is not what actually makes high quality software.
I could believe that they are good at doing research though.
Failing with GCP? GCP has had accelerating growth the past few years, larger than the other two, and widening profit. I've used all three major clouds and overall I would choose GCP, particularly these days for their data/AI stack
> Good is really good at engineering great software
was
While they sucked at bringing products to market and sustaining them, they indeed used to have a good reputation at software engineering. However they are burning that up in the AI pivot, though it's not yet very visible externally.
There might be an institutional block in Google due to the way that Google Wave was received. Google has tried (a few times) to get chat to work. It's never quite lived up to expectations (or hype in the case of Wave). Knowing their history, I can see why they'd want to avoid trying to take on that market again. It's difficult to get enough traction with users to make it a successful product.
Not impossible, but it's not like they haven't tried before in the past.
> Google has tried (a few times) to get chat to work
The original gmail-integrated gchat/google-talk first released in 2005 was fabulous. If they had just kept developing it instead of repeatedly creating a new one, they would easily be the undisputed leaders in this space.
Google leadership failed in chat because they forgot the most important thing. Metcalf's law. the value of a network is scales to the square of the number of users.
when they wanted to create new chat apps, they had a choice. do we force all of our users to move to the new app or do we figure out a way to bridge the apps. They chose to force users to move.
The problem is, when you force people to move, you also give them the chance to leave and try new things. Instead of figuring out how to make the new chat app more valuable to users it was meant to appeal to by giving them access to google's entire chat userbase without forcing anything on those users, they killed their existing user base on the hope of forcing them to move to the new app. They didn't and now google's an afterthought in the chat space.
They did the same thing with google+ in general. They had a community of committed users sharing data with each other and commenting on stories on google reader. Instead of figuring out how to leverage that user base to contribute "content" to google+ and users that would prefer to use this new interface, and thereby make that new interface more valuable, they killed google reader in an attempt to force those users to migrate to google+. They didn't and went elsewhere.
Google has repeatedly made the mistake of forcing their users to migrate from what they were used to, and every time they do they open the gates for those users to migrate outside of google.
Facebook has learned this lesson relatively well. They don't force users to migrate to Instagram/facebook or whatsapp/messenger. In the Instagram / facebook case they seem to be improving the ability of users to use their Instagram account to add content to facebook (though not in the reverse). While in the whatsapp/messenger case, they haven't forced anyone to migrate, but they also haven't had any interoperability. One would think the apps would have even more value if they could communicate with each other.
Wave's core ideas are at the heart of modern collaborative tools. It's just the UX that was poor. If they stuck at it and refined it, they could be the leader of this segment. Something that I can say for a lot of what Google does. They quit too fast and maybe more importantly they don't use the knowledge they got from their failures to improve.
It's the same with Inbox which remains the best email client I ever used but weirdly Gmail never got the core UX ideas which made it works so well. I would like to say Google doesn't get UX but clearly they have great UX designers on board. It's just that they probably never get final say and are not first class citizen.
For me, it's an issue of discipline. A lot of Google products seems to be built like R&D projects with the mindset which goes with it. They don't have the discipline to do the boring refining work that great UX requires.
I remember using google chat prior to slack arrival and it always bothered me that google seemed allergic to letting me organize the freaking contact list.
The insistence on choosing who shows up where by algorithm and "intelligence" made it impossible to create muscle memory, you had to look and/or search every time.
Google has been stuck in exactly this loop for over a decade without going all-in on a single application. They seem to launch a new chat app every couple of years with not quite as many features as the prior chat application, and slowly add features until it's time for it to be replaced by newer one still.
What exactly does Slack do that other chats don’t?
If you had to boil it down to 10 main features what is the point of this? Realtime chat seems to me to be distracting, and I much prefer threaded forums and issue trackers. But I’m willing to listen.
Google Wave was very Slack-coded long before Slack existed. I think they feel the pain of getting that wrong so deeply that they'll never try it again.
It's been too long so I only vaguely remember Wave.
It was a little too early to market. Common PCs weren't quite good enough, and common Internet was very not good enough.
The UI also didn't quite help shape normal user workflows enough so it was hard for an average user to just pick it up and be productive.
---
I think I'd like to see some merger of 'checklists', 'events' (calendar / etc), and 'conversations' much more like Slack channels where each new topic is a thread / email chain.
I hope I don't suffer from early onset Alzheimer's, but I seem to recall the joke pre the pandemic was that Google would constantly make new chat apps.
Google Dou, Google Chat, Google Wave, Google this, Google that. Seemingly because someone needed a promotion and the way to do that was to create a new chat app or lead the effort for the same.
You don't, it was egregious. Don't forget that Gmail chat and google chat were also different and merged but not, I don't even remember very well but it was confusing.
Wave was fine, I liked it for the short time it lived and I am happy that google docs carry some of its collaboration legacy.
Google tried to build chat/video conferencing software like 5 times now. Some of attempts were even decent. They just decided that because they instantly didn't win 100% of the market they need to close it.
> For the life of me I cannot understand why they after a decade, has let slack and teams become basically a duopoly in this space.
The only reason Teams is even in the running is it's because it is (was) added for free to the O365 suite so many execs just went "well, since we already have it..."
As a piece of software for voice chats it's okay but as piece of software for text chats it is absolutely atrocious piece of shit that learned zero lessons from anything else and refused to fix anything users actually want
"Remind me about this" creates a public task in the channel!?!? "Hey everyone! I'm choosing not to respond to this right now but don't want to forget!"
We're migrating off Slack because they jacked our prices by 40% this year. Our team used Google Chat for one week and revolted.
In my experience building a couple ChatGPT apps and, through colleagues, working with OpenAI folks, I'm not sure they should be building anything in their current state. Seems quite disorganized over there.
This. Also building a MCP app for ChatGPT right now, and man, things break here and there without notice. Seems very unorganized over all there. They should glue a Beta or Alpha badge on it.
There's already Zulip, Mattermost, and many others. Building a chat application should be considered a tar pit problem IMO. A lot of success relies on network effects and familiarity, and the product looks deceptively simple.
It's unlikely you can build one that is better than Slack without years of investment. Even if you do, it's still an uphill battle.
> Building a chat application should be considered a tar pit problem IMO
Yes. For example Discord originated as a side-project for a team who were supposed to be building an MOBA. That’s why if you try to build a discord chatbot or custom command or whatever, the servers are called “guilds” etc.[1]
Slack was also developed by a team who were supposed to be developing a video game.[2]
I recently started looking into Zulip and while I can see that it is a complete product its mobile UI is so cluttered and funky I don’t understand how anyone could use it. The desktop web UI seems OK but try this on your phone: https://zulip.com/new/demo/
They have the iOS Safari problem with the keyboard and body scroll, tiny icons, super busy UI. I was hoping to help some folks move off Discord to something else and Zulip is not what I would volunteer to do support for when the users are not techies. Heck, as a techie my eyes glaze over looking at it. I really wish it was slicker and more usable but it simply isn’t.
Author here. You guys are reacting like engineers - it's not the raw features, it's the critical mass that only a rare few like openai can attract.
I don't care that someone else is already trying to build a slack killer. They do not have critical mass.
> A lot of success relies on network effects and familiarity, and the product looks deceptively simple. It's unlikely you can build one that is better than Slack
i agree that you and i can't build one. openai can. article argues that because it can, it should.
There's network effects and then there's core competencies. OpenAI has not demonstrated their ability to create software that is not a primary use case for LLMs. Chat is absolutely not a primary use case for LLMs, and so far LLMs have been sold as a value-add for traditional software.
The argument that OpenAI has the critical mass to dethrone Slack can be made for just about any other product with an 800-pound gorilla market leader. Windows, Office, Photoshop/Premier, Search, GMail, Figma, etc. Thus far, we have yet to see OpenAI build anything like these at scale, and there's no reason to assume their successes in the LLM space will translate.
I agree that they should build killer apps like these, because they are at extreme risk of being commoditized by smaller, better, faster genAI systems, but I don't think anything they do currently shows that they can.
"You guys are reacting like engineers" is a very wave-y dismissal of the many practical questions raised about why exactly OpenAI should expand into a product that's tangentially related (at best) to their core competency of AI.
The chain of logic in the article is explicitly spelled out as: Sam Altman said OpenAI will grow into new products -> Altman says to tell them what these products should be -> You say: Slack sucks so.... how about Slack?
I think most people, engineers or otherwise, reading the article have an understandable reaction of mostly bafflement as to why we are even talking about this, specifically, to begin with?
Mattermost team here. Agree we could have done a better job communicating. The change started in 2023 and we had made a lot of effort to work with the largest unsupported deployments early.
Our understanding is that the organizations most impacted were those using the unsupported Mattermost commercial version, not the open source version. The commercial version of Mattermost is offered in Docker, K8, etc.
If you look into the license of the Mattermost instance you ran, what is the "Enterprise Edition" (i.e. commercial version that upgrades into paid offering) or under MIT license (open source licensed offering, bundled with GitLab omnibus)?
Zulip is pretty weird compared to the rest, it's always hard to tell what's even going on with threads within threads within threads. Far more experimental than all others which are basically all the same.
There's also Discord of course, but they've recently announced their impending implosion.
There are already a ton of slack alternatives. Slack connect is the main thing that is blocking a lot of people from moving off slack, otherwise chat is a commodity.
It's funny how people complain about Slack pricing but I've been using it for our company (nearly 100 people) for nearly a decade without paying a dime. The only thing we're not getting is history (and you really shouldn't save valuable info on chat anyway, we have other data repositories for that such as Wiki and git).
So for me, we're getting tremendous value out of Slack and not once have they bothered to ask us to pay.
If search and summarization is good enough, and you basically write down automatically by default all your "tribal knowledge" in your chat app, using wikis or documentation systems starts to be redundant.
If Google had stuck with Wave, and applied proper product management to it to refine the design feature set, it would be Slack+Notion today and I'd enthusiastically be using it.
IIRC around that time a lot of people were on Jabber. At least that was the case where I worked. We ran our own Jabber server but management made us shut it down because it wasn't a "core contributing technology" or something like that.
Google Chat in the early years worked with Jabber clients. Maybe with Wave they changed the protocol? That killed any interest in Google's chat technologies for me.
Still haven't ever used Slack. My office uses Teams now. It works but it's pretty unpleasant. Gets the basic task done I guess.
I'd agree if OpenAI seemed any good at building apps. They're a frontier AI lab and not operating like a product company. A lot of great and interesting things come from that, but not refined products.
Their MacOS app really sucks. For months now, it's been eating up 100% CPU with some zombie process occasionally, their helpful global shortcut layover often doesn't autofocus, and their UX has never felt like it gets a lot of attention.
They lack user obsession. Altman talks a lot about going above and beyond RLHFing to get the tone just right. But it's never felt right to me.
We use Slack at work, and everyone we work with uses Slack, and we all work together with Slack Connect. I suspect if we moved to a competitor that’s pretty much the main impact we’d see, and it wouldn’t be good unless everyone else work with moved too. I think that network effect is probably the only meaningful differentiation in that space.
You could also look at it as: in order for a Slack competitor to compete with Slack's network effects, the new program will need to offer an easy way to extend chat workspaces with external collaborators. It's not impossible, but it does make Slack's moat explicitly clear.
The problem here is that companies artificially limit integrations, so it's impossible to exchange messages between different providers like how email works.
I don't think the world needs another protocol, we need to leverage the ones we have. This space (text-based real-time messaging with media attachments) is feature complete, there's nothing left to add. The remaining value-adds are exactly that; optional extensions for productivities suites and integrating SaaS tools. Pricing and Privacy are another two concerns, and personally for the latter I'd like human chat to be as far away from AI as possible.
I use Google Chat, only because my clients use it. Network effects matter. Personally I think it's terrible, but I wasn't a fan of Slack either but I'm not entirely sure why as it's pretty much just sending text. Maybe the opportunity to innovate in this space is UI/UX, and performance/reliability (Signal has been slow/flaky recently for us).
A friend and I are working on something like this. It’s more Slack-adjacent; the problem we’re tackling is, “what does a future where agents seamlessly integrate with day to day communication look like?” We’re a little more focused on the developer platform.
We’re embarrassingly early and haven’t “launched” yet but I guess there’s some value in sharing with an audience who might be interested!
We call it “Superuser” [0], the social hub for agent tools. There’s more of a focus on the developer platform, but warning: major WIP! We are shipping huge changes and our docs are out of date...
We used to have a local devs slack and any time someone came up with a random slash command one guy would add a new php script to power that command. I assume a lot of it is just an abandoned API that nobody cares about anymore because Microsoft forced Teams into Office so it took over corporate America in waves. I cant remember the last place I worked at that didnt just use Teams.
Wait the two problems are apparently the price, and the reliability?
And you're asking a company famously burning money building a tool that is used for vibe-coding (aka unreliable software development) to build a replacement?
Maybe I'm living in a parallel reality, but there are plenty of Slack alternatives and plenty of companies using Slack clones such as Mattermost and Zulip, among others. And yes, they work just fine.
I'd take even a smaller self-hostable "Hey, here's a really cool project that can be made with Codex and our other tools, ain't it great PR?" program that's not built for some crazy scale, but that I can put on a VPS somewhere - and would support the basic features of Slack and Discord. Think a Node.js app or something similar, PostgreSQL, maybe RabbitMQ/Redis, a SPA with React or whatever. Basic but consistent styling and features.
So, workspaces, channels, threads, voice and video calls, screen sharing, file sharing, polls/reactions to messages.
Especially given the current situation with Discord. If such a thing could even be built with any tools and mostly/partially vibe coded, then it'd reflect really positively on the state of the tools!
What evidence is there that OpenAI will be more benevolent than Salesforce? Perhaps we shouldn’t give large corporations more opportunities for data mining.
Slack would be a lot better if they supported clients via rest api or similar. I want to run it in a terminal window alongside IRC etc. I have no desire to put up with their ridiculous UI/UX decisions
Make a Slack clone, but have it perform way better than the original (less RAM, CPU usage), with a smaller storage footprint.
Also deliver on features faster than the original. And have those features be more tailored to what the users both want and need - and things they didn’t even know they needed as well.
But it's so unreasonably slow. It lacks basic features like syntax highlighting on ``` blocks. It's basically become a super expensive and painful to use while Discord continues to be a joy.
And the 'start a thread' nazis are just too much to bear. Prediction: they will add subthreads within 3 years.
Social issues can't be solved by technical means. Just slightly incentivised in some direction (like discord's "this is the third reply, would you like a thread instead?")
But for the resource usage, ripcord https://cancel.fm/ripcord/ already proved you can have a capable client which is super light and fast if you care. This was made by a single person and in many ways is better than the official client.
Interesting idea. I do feel one of the major barriers to mass replacement of white collar workers is lack of direct integration between email/slack and LLMs. A human still needs to distill organizational needs from multiple stakeholders to write a prompt.
At the same time, I would be very surprised if companies are lining up to hand over all of their internal comms to OpenAI. Would need really strong privacy guarantees, and I’m not sure OpenAI has the goodwill to be convincing on that front.
Also, doesn’t MS still nominally have some stake in OpenAI? Would be surprised if they were chill with another competitor to Teams getting built.
They'll just do what Anthropic does: let it Ralph Wiggum a pile of broken shit, and then say "wewwwww, doing pwogwamming is vewwy hawd, UwU >_<" when it won't build and fails at basic use cases that would be easy to test automatically
Most SaaS companies eventually veer towards the heavy enterprise which results in them raising prices and excessively complicating their app. So there is opportunity for a competitor but I'm not sure OpenAI is in a good position and it'd cement the view that they will eventually use your data to compete with you.
> Microsoft did, and Teams is by all reports a solid success.
Not sure if the author has used Teams.
But otherwise, I agree we need an actual good, adorable Slack clone. I thought Google might do this after not buying Slack, but I'm not hearing anything about their solution.
Teams is shovelware. Force bundled, with questionably reliable messaging, okay video calling (if your organization policies don't break it), and a fairly useless Phone System component that misbehaves often.
Great for organizations that believe these forms of communication should be an afterthought that has rough edges and inconsistent reliability.
The recent changes to end webhook support, kill Linux desktop support and do yet another rewrite are inane. Don't expect features you use today in Teams to work in 2 years...
My org went all in on Teams over 6 years ago. Removed all PBX systems and desk phones. Pulled out Cisco phones from 20 offices. Ported all numbers to MS. By all accounts it was unremarkable to the end users, and when WFH mandates started it was seamless. Definitely a lot less IT support for configuring and troubleshooting a phone system too. There is far less downtime because Teams will ring through to your cell phone if the office internet is down or your laptop is off. That was not possible when the Cisco routers and CallManager in the office were running the DIDs and local extensions
Maybe in 2020. Teams is the defacto IM app for enterprise now. It may not be to your liking, but most workplaces don't need apps to constantly be adding new features. They need videoconferencing, chat, meeting recording and AI transcription and note-taking. All synced with everyone's Outlook calendars and authenticated by the same SSO used org-wide. Teams has had all of those for years.
They're ending webhooks? Bummer. By the looks of it, they're going to introduce a more complex alternative. No, two, because why not. Why make something work when you can also make two things that work half, right?
We are being forced to dump slack for Teams. The only people who like Teams is Sales and Marketing for some reason. Not a single engineer likes this, and it will break every engineering convenience that exists on Slack.
As an ENG - I REALLY dislike teams - but I also dislike Slack
Slack should be emails that have been arranged into different folders - it just doesn't vibe with me for much otherwise (oo look you have 200 channels on unread - or, if you are the reverse, ooo look 200 channels with people chatting and I have to check every single one of them :(
Discord if you don't mind something proprietary, Mattermost or Rocketchat if you do, Zulip if you want something slightly different . . . and no doubt many other alternatives
Slack is easy to replace with something cheaper and better on a product or technical level. The network effects are strong of course, but they won't sustain it forever
Discord is a solid product. They just need to launch a simple business-friendly alternative UI without the teenager gamer aesthetics. I’m surprised they never tried going after the enterprise market.
I use teams at work and it's okay. Not the best, not the worst, but okay piece of software. At least I have both the calendar and the videocall things in one app and see when the call starts, so I don't accidentally ADHD myself into missing it.
Anything that accepts webhook integrations will be able to do this. I've got the Google calendar and meeting notifications on Slack, but it would be trivial to replicate with any two systems that have APIs available.
I guess I'm in the minority but I haven't noticed a significant variance in quality and features on any chat app I've used in the past 20 years. It seems like a thoroughly solved problem. Slack's "killer feature" was that they really streamlined onboarding which is feels neat the first time you do it. Otherwise, chat is chat. The biggest obstacle has always been getting everyone you need to talk to to agree on which platform to use.
It's by and large the slowest, jankiest, laggiest software I use regularly. And I say that as someone who swears Adobe has added a bunch of sleeps in Lightroom.
On basic chat: it will sometimes scroll up when I get a new message, while I'm actively participating in that chat, so I need to scroll back down to read the new messages. Occasionally it flickers, for bonus points. It will not mark the chat as read if I'm on it without clicking on a different chat and coming back. It's the only software I use that, for some reason, has an effect on my typing accuracy. Don't even get me started on its handling of copy/paste. I'm also pretty sure there's some joke I just don't get around the search function.
For calls: it refuses to pick the correct microphone, and will sometimes mute it completely somehow (I lose the feedback in the headphones – I have a jabra headset that does this). This will even happen when I hang up a call and start another one right away. Other times it works well. My default mic is always my wired, always connected, headset mic. I don't use BT headsets that switch from music to communications or whatever depending on what I do, which could confuse the available / selected mics.
It drains my laptop's and iphone's battery like no tomorrow, even if I turn off video and only do voice chat, even if nobody has the camera on or shares a screen. Also, on Windows, for some reason it doesn't use the native notifications, but implements its own crappy ones – but this isn't that big of an issue, since I mostly disable them anyway.
All this is happening on both the "heavy" (heh) Windows client, and on chrome on Linux, both running on a fairly beefy new PC with gobs of RAM. Fun fact: the experience was exactly the same on my 5-year-old laptop with a U-series Intel CPU, so I don't think it's a resources problem.
Teams suffers from one giant problem. There is a totally odd, but understandable from tech debt perspective, segregation between “chats” and “teams” which makes it practically impossible to find everything. It’s a fatal flaw. Slack is beautifully simple and effective in comparison. Also, the reminder feature on slack is extremely useful to me personally and I miss it dearly in teams.
Let me clear my cache after logging in twice to get the OOM fixed so I can finally login to show you what’s wrong with it over a teams call and hope it doesn’t logout and reload randomly during the call.
The fundamental design choice of Teams teams channels makes channels unusable vs Slack channels.
The chat part (outside channels) is OK. I've seen the metrics for our instance (10k users), the teams channel part is basically unused.
Does this matter?
Yes, I think so for a chat first culture.
Teams is definitely a solid success. It is by no means a good app. Those two things aren't the same.
Slack started with an aggressive "bottom up" approach, they made something actually good and got to worrying about the sales part later. You don't need sales as much when companies come to you, begging you for an actual contract that fulfills their enterprise requirements, knowing that rooting you out is almost impossible.
Teams went the other way, in typical Microsoft style. Microsoft sells it bundled with all the other Microsoft things it sells. Most companies want a Microsoft contract anyway, and have an established sales relationship with MS, so adopting Teams is a lot less compliance, integration and procurement work than adopting anything else. You don't need good UI if your sales strategy isn't predicated on users choosing you for UI.
And then there's Discord, which really isn't a bad work comms app if you're small enough not to need the compliance stuff. It gives you almost everything the big apps do for free, including unlimited calls, an advanced RBAC system, as many channels / messages as you want, a decent bot API (including media streaming), good notification management, multi-server / cross-organization support etc. They're actively disinterested in selling to businesses (which is what makes them so good, the features they paywall are the features needed by gamers, not serious professionals), but that also means you'll need to eventually migrate off of it when compliance requirements set in.
I thought Slack started as a failed game and they only pivoted when their in game chat proved popular. They still have game assets around like their 404 page iirc.
Lol it aas an admirable attempt at something new. I loved the interesting blend of messaging and document creation. It the code still lives on as an archived open project btw.
If you haven't tried the new slackbot you should... I've been using it at work and I'm blown away at what it can do with the context it has on you and your teams from slack.
Should they be a model company or a product company? What do you think is the best way forward for them? Apple went with Google as their model choice while OpenAI was looking into new products to build.
They almost have, you could wrangle group projects + group chats together pretty easily and you'd be close-ish. The claude cowork experience backed by google drive with the openai group projects and group chat would, imo, be a really awesome way to work!
Sorry, but why should they? What makes OpenAI better at making Slack than....Slack? Sure, Slack can be improved, but why the fuck should that be done by OpenAI? Shouldn't OpenAI concentrate on...I don't know....AI?! And first try to break even on that promise and actually generate revenue on that shitty promise?
> Slack has been on a slow rachet up in prices and has struggled to introduce compelling new AI features
I can think of a few reasons that Slack could be improved upon. But a lack of AI features is not on that list. Slack is effective for async communication between humans. We don't need AI features to accomplish that, and most AI would just be annoying slop. If you are using Slack for something else, maybe AI features would help those other uses, but you also might be stretching the cases for which Slack is a good thing.
Shameless plug. We’re working on something like this. thismachine.ai. It’s still early, but interested to get feedback. The slack/chat part is still behind a feature flag. Let me know if you want to use it
I'd rather it build docs. Or at least have a feature in chatgpt that lets you highlight something and start a comment thread, rather than a multi-page essay response as a continuation of the chat itself.
I'm more interested in the fact that disclaimer at the top makes me think the entire article is written by AI as a summary of a bunch of reddit posts and tweets and discord topics?
I'd like to speculate, with the recent success of AI agents on the command line with OpenClaw, that perhaps IRC could be the future of AI-enabled chat rooms?
thank you for listening!! team works hard on it. Jeff was an absolute bucket list GOAT to have on the show and to launch the pod with the new Deep Think is just icing on the cake. Every 3-4 months people remember that Google (and Jeff) has low key been accumulating basically every advantage under the sun that all the other AI majors are struggling to pull together themselves.... and then constrained by bigcorp politics. it seems like they are figuring things out though.
signal should just add better API / bot stuff and then we could all use that. there's no way OpenAI would be trustworthy for this; slack certainly isn't
You'd be out of your mind to trust an OpenAI built Slack competitor. Slack, for all of it's many faults, is two things:
- Reliable, both in terms of "service uptime" and in terms of "Slack isn't going to rugpull your features"
- Secure. Slack don't have a history of major breaches or data exposure.
Both of these means that people feel comfortable relying on it. Who would possibly trust OpenAI with data security, or that their app will still be around in 3 years.
Why stop at Slack, we need better software for tons of things. Even a better OS is something which we would do if we had the AI productivity gains that people pretend we do.
Just let the agents spin. But it's not that easy, is it.
Someone that will tackle this will be competing against B dollar companies and extravagant level of features and integration. It's not as simple as a chatroom with people in it.
I can't read the article, but I feel people are missing the point here.
Slack is a really really good product because it is simple enough and works nice - performant, has just enough features but not too many and the UX/UI is good.
Its not a power tool but it gets the job done without getting in the way. You would know what I mean if you have used teams/ google chat etc.
Sure you can criticise slack for being a bit slow, not having nested threads.
For context: slack is the main app I use at work and spend a * lot * of time there.
But OpenAI _can_ beat Slack at these things if they have the technical acumen. But real differentiator comes in having an all in one platform that can help you run workflows. Recall that ChatGPT UI is fundamentally a chat box. If ChatGPT can integrate common workflows like
- send an email to a colleague for something
- schedule a meeting at a certain time
- deploy to production
- approve leaves
- create quick code changes with natural language like "change threshold to 50 in my repo"
- integration with observability and alerting
Then you don't have to leave this tool at all. There's a lot of potential here.
I frequently want to just tag GPT when using slack. Like "hey take this jira task and create a quick pull request" and it will link the pull request in the thread.
Or when my colleague asks me for a meeting, I can tag GPT with something like "hey schedule a meeting later in the day when we both have time".
Just for reference, teams is not an astounding success it's forced on the workforce by management who want to pay less. It's a classic management square peg into workforce round hole.
Yes I understand sometimes something is better than nothing but teams is _so_ bad it causes user communities to fracture when they would previously congregate on the same platform.
Sure if deployed correctly and not by ape sysadmins with a thump of "deny everything in terms of security" I'm sure teams is a reasonable product, but in the real world, no, it's a nightmare.
Why keep relying on API services? If you'd like your own local AI integration with open providers like Rocket.Chat and Mattermost, check out txtchat (https://github.com/neuml/txtchat).
Can we go back to IRC now? Slack took what we were already doing with IRC, replaced the duct tape and firewalks, packaged up the key functionality (channels, file sharing, access) with a purple UI and mobile app and went to market.
The days of a single company maintaining a grip on something like workplace chat (and the inherent data) are numbered now. We're not building a C compiler.
Time will come when their subscription fee competes directly with another spend that can generate bespoke but commonplace business tools like chat with no data egress (or better yet, a demonstration that what you now keep and can act on what you previously paid Salesforce to steal.) Soon.
I have never understood slack. It’s basically a very expensive solution for a generation who are scared of command terminals and too prideful, or clearly narcissistic, to admit fear.
Slack is based on IRC. IRC is free and there are multiple browser clients for it. Knowing that completely takes the air out of a commercial vanity tool.
Technically, clients could simply upload images to S3 and render them inline whenever they encounter an image URL in a message - no protocol or server changes required. And if you're using an older IRC client, you can still just click the link.
The main problem with IRC is that messages aren't stored anywhere. The classic IRC protocol simply broadcasts new messages to whoever is currently present in the channel. When you rejoin, messages are typically not replayed. In theory, a modified server could handle this, and a supported client could recognize that it's receiving playback and present it as channel history.
I wonder why we don't extend the IRC protocol in these backward-compatible ways instead of inventing new messengers/protocols.
Funnily enough, from Slack's own testing they could make it that tool tomorrow by changing the input box from a single line to a multi-line input. A la the Hacker News input box we are all typing into right now.
You got me thinking about whether a pre-send message that could theoretically appear: "Given the channel that you are currently in, this might not be an appropriate message. Would you like to reword it, have AI reword it, or send it anyways?"
This presumably would feel absolutely terrible to use, but it might be a way to nudge towards community consensus for how certain spaces would work.
One of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. A company with the premier LLM, asking companies to outsource the platform running all
internal communications. What does OP think we are all doing here in business? This is the Ycombinator community edition of Rodney King's famous "Why can't we all just get along".
Seems like a fantastic idea of OpenAI other than, like, why would anybody else go along with it? It would be like giving all our emails to an ad company or something.
Google should build slack. Its a travesty how incredibly good their google workspace suite of tools is, and then google chat is what sits between it all. If it wasn't for the fact that google bungled an internal communication tool so badly, slack wouldn't even have to exist.
For the life of me I cannot understand why they after a decade, has let slack and teams become basically a duopoly in this space.
Source: I use google chat everyday, so its not just a "UI looks ugly thing". Literally nothing you think should work works. Ex: inviting outside collaborators to a shared channel, converting a private DM group into a channel, having public channels for community & private channels for internal work. Goes on and on.
While the current incarnation of Google Chat has indeed been steadily improving, Google has a lot, and I mean a lot, to make up for:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-... (2021, as the URL says)
And it's not just messaging. Google has a decades-long history of abandoning apps that don't make them billions, which means no-one with memory trusts them. Especially in their current "AI-everything or bust!" incarnation.
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-... (2021, as the URL says)
This article never fails to crack me up! Arstechnica.com at its best.
1 reply →
Such a great article. I love a good postmortem. I also had no idea of the chequered history of Google's messaging apps. I'd heard some of the names before, but being an iMessage and WhatsApp user, I'd just stuck with those mostly.
1 reply →
I don't think we should cheer on one of the largest companies in the world to build a product to get them even more enterprise stranglehold.
The praise for this monopoly is misdirected. Every single one of you, unless you're a significant GOOG shareholder, should be wanting for antitrust breakup of Google. They're putting pressure on your wages and other investments, and they're contributing to a ceiling for other startups and companies.
Google engineers are brilliant, but the corporation itself needs to be horizontally dismantled into several Googles that all compete with one another. (Not simply a vertical breakup along product lines, but rather the old-school "Ma Bell" style breakup that creates companies that then have to compete on the same offerings.)
A breakup would be good for GOOG investors too, because there's far more value locked up in the company and far too many opportunities left by the wayside.
16 replies →
"how incredibly good their google workspace suite of tools is" - is that a common sentiment on HN?
To me, Google Sheets is 10% of Excel on desktop (Mac), Slides are 5% of PowerPoint on desktop (Mac), and the integration between the two (copying and pasting linked charts from Excel to Powerpoint with formatting) makes it a completely non-starter to consider the Google alternatives as primary drivers.
I'm probably a power-user of both, granted, but I took for granted Sheets/Slides are still just toys compared to the real stuff, so curious if I'm missing something.
I've worked for years at companies that only use Google Sheets.
For 99% of people (sometimes we let Finance folks have an Excel license), it's more than enough. Google Apps Script is also reasonably useful, and the newer Smart Chips are a nice addition.
As you note, most people aren’t power users. That core functionality is enough for 80%+ of users.
Even I, a definite though intermittent power user, am fine with the Google versions most of the time.
Collaboration also just feels faster in Google.
Competent is not the same as good. I can do the very basic things I need in Sheets, but the moment it needs more than =A1+B2 then it's uphill all the way. I also don't know how performant it is with larger datasets. I use Libre Office instead and despite the horrible UI it's been speedy and accurate. Desktop Excel is still king of the spreadsheets.
As for Slides, it's pure junk compared to the Keynote, but iCloud has it's own problems so I use this offline-only.
With the web version of Word 365 or whatever it's called, we've had so many problems syncing with OneDrive and sharing and whether it's showing the right version of the document that I'd be happy to never see it again, but their foothold in education means I'm forced to deal with it and provide technical support.
Most of the time what you call "the real stuff" is unnecessary.
Excel on Mac is an especially low bar. Last I checked Mac Excel was like 60% of Windows Excel.
I am not a power user of either, and I absolutely detest when someone insists on using Excel. Sharing and collaboration is such a giant pain, and it's like going backwards in time to the 90's with e-mailed versions of files back and forth. Our org does not have a MS 365 license, so I'm unsure of Microsoft's web versions of Excel or how good they happen to be these days. I know users of it who complain though, and end up using it locally on their workstation like the olden days.
Most of my use is incredibly simple and used for project planning, inventory counting, lists of things that are split up into status/to-dos among multiple people, etc.
I've also never had a use for "Advanced" powerpoint, so the simplicity of google slides is a breath of fresh are as I only ever use the 10% most common feature set.
I actually get a bit of anxiety when someone sends me an excel sheet these days. It's usually going to be overly complex using clever methods, and that person is going to be a real pain to work with on iterating anything most of the time.
I've noted some very rare and specific times Excel is warranted though - such as our CFO creating complex financial modeling. For those uses I totally get that Google Sheets would be like working with handcuffs on.
2 replies →
I don’t understand why Gemini is not better integrated into Google Docs.
I can’t transfer results into docs, it can’t manipulate existing docs.
I can’t even rule out that I’m doing something wrong somehow.
But it’s just frustrating to see that the teams inside of Google don’t work well together.
Gemini isn’t even an expert in Google’s own products. Ask about a feature from within one of their own products and it’s as dumb as any other LLM.
Why wouldn’t you ground it in knowledge and your product?
1 reply →
I mean Gemini is basically brand new... They're clearly working towards deeper integration.
10 replies →
Google Chat is definitely a product that could use more love, but it is situated in a specific internal landscape, and grows out of it. Slack is built for a very different context, and I doubt Google would build something like that. Google simply doesn't see the world the way someone who likes Slack would (and I also doubt a large co like Google could operate out of Slack).
> and I also doubt a large co like Google could operate out of Slack
Plenty of corporations much larger than Google operate out of Slack.
6 replies →
Good is really good at engineering great software and really sucks at making them enterprise ready.
It's why they've been failing with GCP, Google Tables (shutdown now I guess), Analytics or any product that aims for enterprise consumption. Note: they are really good at making consumer softwares though (take the success of Google Photos or Gsearch)
Google isn't even good at engineering great software.
They have some good people working on some good projects. If you look at the relation between software-quality of their average product and number of developers they have... yeah I don't know. Maybe hiring tons of new-grads that are good at leetcode and then forcing them to use golang... is not what actually makes high quality software.
I could believe that they are good at doing research though.
3 replies →
Failing with GCP? GCP has had accelerating growth the past few years, larger than the other two, and widening profit. I've used all three major clouds and overall I would choose GCP, particularly these days for their data/AI stack
> Good is really good at engineering great software
was
While they sucked at bringing products to market and sustaining them, they indeed used to have a good reputation at software engineering. However they are burning that up in the AI pivot, though it's not yet very visible externally.
1 reply →
There might be an institutional block in Google due to the way that Google Wave was received. Google has tried (a few times) to get chat to work. It's never quite lived up to expectations (or hype in the case of Wave). Knowing their history, I can see why they'd want to avoid trying to take on that market again. It's difficult to get enough traction with users to make it a successful product.
Not impossible, but it's not like they haven't tried before in the past.
> Google has tried (a few times) to get chat to work
The original gmail-integrated gchat/google-talk first released in 2005 was fabulous. If they had just kept developing it instead of repeatedly creating a new one, they would easily be the undisputed leaders in this space.
1 reply →
Google leadership failed in chat because they forgot the most important thing. Metcalf's law. the value of a network is scales to the square of the number of users.
when they wanted to create new chat apps, they had a choice. do we force all of our users to move to the new app or do we figure out a way to bridge the apps. They chose to force users to move.
The problem is, when you force people to move, you also give them the chance to leave and try new things. Instead of figuring out how to make the new chat app more valuable to users it was meant to appeal to by giving them access to google's entire chat userbase without forcing anything on those users, they killed their existing user base on the hope of forcing them to move to the new app. They didn't and now google's an afterthought in the chat space.
They did the same thing with google+ in general. They had a community of committed users sharing data with each other and commenting on stories on google reader. Instead of figuring out how to leverage that user base to contribute "content" to google+ and users that would prefer to use this new interface, and thereby make that new interface more valuable, they killed google reader in an attempt to force those users to migrate to google+. They didn't and went elsewhere.
Google has repeatedly made the mistake of forcing their users to migrate from what they were used to, and every time they do they open the gates for those users to migrate outside of google.
Facebook has learned this lesson relatively well. They don't force users to migrate to Instagram/facebook or whatsapp/messenger. In the Instagram / facebook case they seem to be improving the ability of users to use their Instagram account to add content to facebook (though not in the reverse). While in the whatsapp/messenger case, they haven't forced anyone to migrate, but they also haven't had any interoperability. One would think the apps would have even more value if they could communicate with each other.
Wave's core ideas are at the heart of modern collaborative tools. It's just the UX that was poor. If they stuck at it and refined it, they could be the leader of this segment. Something that I can say for a lot of what Google does. They quit too fast and maybe more importantly they don't use the knowledge they got from their failures to improve.
It's the same with Inbox which remains the best email client I ever used but weirdly Gmail never got the core UX ideas which made it works so well. I would like to say Google doesn't get UX but clearly they have great UX designers on board. It's just that they probably never get final say and are not first class citizen.
For me, it's an issue of discipline. A lot of Google products seems to be built like R&D projects with the mindset which goes with it. They don't have the discipline to do the boring refining work that great UX requires.
1 reply →
I remember using google chat prior to slack arrival and it always bothered me that google seemed allergic to letting me organize the freaking contact list.
The insistence on choosing who shows up where by algorithm and "intelligence" made it impossible to create muscle memory, you had to look and/or search every time.
But hey Google is (was?) a search engine! The best search engine! Obviously the primare UX must always involve searching!
I have never understood the dislike for Google chat. I’ve been using it since it first came out even for friends and it’s everything I want in a chat.
I think people don't use it because google will get rid of it at some point, without warning.
Totally it is the biggest missing piece of their ecosystem and would complete their offering so nicely. Get a pm and 3 engineers and vibe it out
> Get a pm and 3 engineers and vibe it out
Google has been stuck in exactly this loop for over a decade without going all-in on a single application. They seem to launch a new chat app every couple of years with not quite as many features as the prior chat application, and slowly add features until it's time for it to be replaced by newer one still.
1 reply →
Wait
What exactly does Slack do that other chats don’t?
If you had to boil it down to 10 main features what is the point of this? Realtime chat seems to me to be distracting, and I much prefer threaded forums and issue trackers. But I’m willing to listen.
2 replies →
Google Wave was very Slack-coded long before Slack existed. I think they feel the pain of getting that wrong so deeply that they'll never try it again.
It's been too long so I only vaguely remember Wave.
It was a little too early to market. Common PCs weren't quite good enough, and common Internet was very not good enough.
The UI also didn't quite help shape normal user workflows enough so it was hard for an average user to just pick it up and be productive.
---
I think I'd like to see some merger of 'checklists', 'events' (calendar / etc), and 'conversations' much more like Slack channels where each new topic is a thread / email chain.
1 reply →
I hope I don't suffer from early onset Alzheimer's, but I seem to recall the joke pre the pandemic was that Google would constantly make new chat apps.
Google Dou, Google Chat, Google Wave, Google this, Google that. Seemingly because someone needed a promotion and the way to do that was to create a new chat app or lead the effort for the same.
You don't, it was egregious. Don't forget that Gmail chat and google chat were also different and merged but not, I don't even remember very well but it was confusing.
Wave was fine, I liked it for the short time it lived and I am happy that google docs carry some of its collaboration legacy.
How could you forget YouTube Chat?
They have built Slack, it was called Google Wave.
They did. You can find few attempts here https://killedbygoogle.com/
Google tried to build chat/video conferencing software like 5 times now. Some of attempts were even decent. They just decided that because they instantly didn't win 100% of the market they need to close it.
> For the life of me I cannot understand why they after a decade, has let slack and teams become basically a duopoly in this space.
The only reason Teams is even in the running is it's because it is (was) added for free to the O365 suite so many execs just went "well, since we already have it..."
As a piece of software for voice chats it's okay but as piece of software for text chats it is absolutely atrocious piece of shit that learned zero lessons from anything else and refused to fix anything users actually want
Launch an internal hackathon. Everyone must use the latest Gemini coding models. Vote for the top 5 Chat/Productivity tools.
Eventually the culture will come around to: a) build new sh-- quickly with AI b) build a new productivity stack
Hangout was perfect. And they killed it.
"Remind me about this" creates a public task in the channel!?!? "Hey everyone! I'm choosing not to respond to this right now but don't want to forget!"
We're migrating off Slack because they jacked our prices by 40% this year. Our team used Google Chat for one week and revolted.
Google has good technology, but is fundamentally bad at product design, UX, CX, product management, and product marketing.
Haven't they built like, 5 different versions of chat at this point?
[flagged]
[flagged]
In my experience building a couple ChatGPT apps and, through colleagues, working with OpenAI folks, I'm not sure they should be building anything in their current state. Seems quite disorganized over there.
This. Also building a MCP app for ChatGPT right now, and man, things break here and there without notice. Seems very unorganized over all there. They should glue a Beta or Alpha badge on it.
If they had OpenAI Slack, maybe it would get better organized.
FWIW, they do: https://openai.enterprise.slack.com/
1 reply →
There's already Zulip, Mattermost, and many others. Building a chat application should be considered a tar pit problem IMO. A lot of success relies on network effects and familiarity, and the product looks deceptively simple.
It's unlikely you can build one that is better than Slack without years of investment. Even if you do, it's still an uphill battle.
> Building a chat application should be considered a tar pit problem IMO
Yes. For example Discord originated as a side-project for a team who were supposed to be building an MOBA. That’s why if you try to build a discord chatbot or custom command or whatever, the servers are called “guilds” etc.[1]
Slack was also developed by a team who were supposed to be developing a video game.[2]
[1] https://docs.discord.com/developers/resources/guild
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack_(software)#History
Zulip is awesome \m/
I recently started looking into Zulip and while I can see that it is a complete product its mobile UI is so cluttered and funky I don’t understand how anyone could use it. The desktop web UI seems OK but try this on your phone: https://zulip.com/new/demo/
They have the iOS Safari problem with the keyboard and body scroll, tiny icons, super busy UI. I was hoping to help some folks move off Discord to something else and Zulip is not what I would volunteer to do support for when the users are not techies. Heck, as a techie my eyes glaze over looking at it. I really wish it was slicker and more usable but it simply isn’t.
1 reply →
We've been using Zulip for ~5 years, I won't describe it as awesome.
E.g. it takes a minute to open a chat on mobile, but only few seconds on the web. No idea how it's possible if they use same underlying DB.
In fact a full text search over years worth of communication is faster than loading latest DM from a specific person in a mobile app!
And not much improvement over years: few things became nicer. But mobile app was always dogshit.
1 reply →
Author here. You guys are reacting like engineers - it's not the raw features, it's the critical mass that only a rare few like openai can attract. I don't care that someone else is already trying to build a slack killer. They do not have critical mass.
> A lot of success relies on network effects and familiarity, and the product looks deceptively simple. It's unlikely you can build one that is better than Slack
i agree that you and i can't build one. openai can. article argues that because it can, it should.
There's network effects and then there's core competencies. OpenAI has not demonstrated their ability to create software that is not a primary use case for LLMs. Chat is absolutely not a primary use case for LLMs, and so far LLMs have been sold as a value-add for traditional software.
The argument that OpenAI has the critical mass to dethrone Slack can be made for just about any other product with an 800-pound gorilla market leader. Windows, Office, Photoshop/Premier, Search, GMail, Figma, etc. Thus far, we have yet to see OpenAI build anything like these at scale, and there's no reason to assume their successes in the LLM space will translate.
I agree that they should build killer apps like these, because they are at extreme risk of being commoditized by smaller, better, faster genAI systems, but I don't think anything they do currently shows that they can.
"You guys are reacting like engineers" is a very wave-y dismissal of the many practical questions raised about why exactly OpenAI should expand into a product that's tangentially related (at best) to their core competency of AI.
The chain of logic in the article is explicitly spelled out as: Sam Altman said OpenAI will grow into new products -> Altman says to tell them what these products should be -> You say: Slack sucks so.... how about Slack?
I think most people, engineers or otherwise, reading the article have an understandable reaction of mostly bafflement as to why we are even talking about this, specifically, to begin with?
Mattermost did a rug pull though.
Hi @consuln,
Mattermost team here. Agree we could have done a better job communicating. The change started in 2023 and we had made a lot of effort to work with the largest unsupported deployments early.
They were very aware of the direction ahead of the August 2025 announce. From then, there was still over a year of support during the transition: https://forum.mattermost.com/t/mattermost-v11-changes-in-fre...
Our understanding is that the organizations most impacted were those using the unsupported Mattermost commercial version, not the open source version. The commercial version of Mattermost is offered in Docker, K8, etc.
If you look into the license of the Mattermost instance you ran, what is the "Enterprise Edition" (i.e. commercial version that upgrades into paid offering) or under MIT license (open source licensed offering, bundled with GitLab omnibus)?
Zulip is pretty weird compared to the rest, it's always hard to tell what's even going on with threads within threads within threads. Far more experimental than all others which are basically all the same.
There's also Discord of course, but they've recently announced their impending implosion.
There are already a ton of slack alternatives. Slack connect is the main thing that is blocking a lot of people from moving off slack, otherwise chat is a commodity.
I have used Slack Connect once in my 8 years of using slack. I agree it can be a moat, but that's not the case for everyone.
Slack doesn't have one "main thing" it's doing perfect. They have just all around great product, with some weaknesses here and there.
- Solid mobile app
- very good API with good SDKs
- easy to build very rich slack bots, with good building blocks
- Good notification management
- Workflows for non technical people that make automation easy
- Good level of customization
- Good enough performance
- Video/Audio calls are good enough
So when a company is questioning what tool to use Slack is an easy go-to. "Nobody gets fired for buying IBM" type of tool.
Can you live without it? yeah. But do you really wanna focus on what chat platform your company should be using or just focus on your product?
Agreed. Every productivity software and their mother has chat.
It's funny how people complain about Slack pricing but I've been using it for our company (nearly 100 people) for nearly a decade without paying a dime. The only thing we're not getting is history (and you really shouldn't save valuable info on chat anyway, we have other data repositories for that such as Wiki and git).
So for me, we're getting tremendous value out of Slack and not once have they bothered to ask us to pay.
If you get big enough for Slack to care about, your history will be impractically short.
History is three months now, regardless of data used.
If search and summarization is good enough, and you basically write down automatically by default all your "tribal knowledge" in your chat app, using wikis or documentation systems starts to be redundant.
a lot of knowledge lives in our slack history.
If you can’t retrieve the knowledge easily it doesn’t exist. Basically impossible to find anything in slack older than a week.
2 replies →
But that's chaotic chat messages, you should really have proper docs in place and standard operating procedures etc.
2 replies →
If Google had stuck with Wave, and applied proper product management to it to refine the design feature set, it would be Slack+Notion today and I'd enthusiastically be using it.
IIRC around that time a lot of people were on Jabber. At least that was the case where I worked. We ran our own Jabber server but management made us shut it down because it wasn't a "core contributing technology" or something like that.
Google Chat in the early years worked with Jabber clients. Maybe with Wave they changed the protocol? That killed any interest in Google's chat technologies for me.
Still haven't ever used Slack. My office uses Teams now. It works but it's pretty unpleasant. Gets the basic task done I guess.
XMPP / Jabber would be more than enough for many small companies. Slack is bloat!
I'd agree if OpenAI seemed any good at building apps. They're a frontier AI lab and not operating like a product company. A lot of great and interesting things come from that, but not refined products.
Their MacOS app really sucks. For months now, it's been eating up 100% CPU with some zombie process occasionally, their helpful global shortcut layover often doesn't autofocus, and their UX has never felt like it gets a lot of attention.
They lack user obsession. Altman talks a lot about going above and beyond RLHFing to get the tone just right. But it's never felt right to me.
It is still way ahead of its competition, at least when it comes to mobile app.
We use Slack at work, and everyone we work with uses Slack, and we all work together with Slack Connect. I suspect if we moved to a competitor that’s pretty much the main impact we’d see, and it wouldn’t be good unless everyone else work with moved too. I think that network effect is probably the only meaningful differentiation in that space.
You could also look at it as: in order for a Slack competitor to compete with Slack's network effects, the new program will need to offer an easy way to extend chat workspaces with external collaborators. It's not impossible, but it does make Slack's moat explicitly clear.
The problem here is that companies artificially limit integrations, so it's impossible to exchange messages between different providers like how email works.
2 replies →
I don't think the world needs another protocol, we need to leverage the ones we have. This space (text-based real-time messaging with media attachments) is feature complete, there's nothing left to add. The remaining value-adds are exactly that; optional extensions for productivities suites and integrating SaaS tools. Pricing and Privacy are another two concerns, and personally for the latter I'd like human chat to be as far away from AI as possible.
I use Google Chat, only because my clients use it. Network effects matter. Personally I think it's terrible, but I wasn't a fan of Slack either but I'm not entirely sure why as it's pretty much just sending text. Maybe the opportunity to innovate in this space is UI/UX, and performance/reliability (Signal has been slow/flaky recently for us).
A friend and I are working on something like this. It’s more Slack-adjacent; the problem we’re tackling is, “what does a future where agents seamlessly integrate with day to day communication look like?” We’re a little more focused on the developer platform.
We’re embarrassingly early and haven’t “launched” yet but I guess there’s some value in sharing with an audience who might be interested!
We call it “Superuser” [0], the social hub for agent tools. There’s more of a focus on the developer platform, but warning: major WIP! We are shipping huge changes and our docs are out of date...
[0] https://superuser.app
My personal experience with using Slack as just a in-company chat app has been fine. I enjoy using Slack more than Teams or Discord.
All their integrations kinda suck though, and its not uncommon for integrations to randomly break with no discernible changes elsewhere.
> I enjoy using Slack more than Teams or Discord.
Surely we can raise the bar for team chat out of hell....
I hate how Slack has no syntax highlighting for code blocks. Even Discord has it.
On the desktop, you can share snippets, but this is not inline.
We used to have a local devs slack and any time someone came up with a random slash command one guy would add a new php script to power that command. I assume a lot of it is just an abandoned API that nobody cares about anymore because Microsoft forced Teams into Office so it took over corporate America in waves. I cant remember the last place I worked at that didnt just use Teams.
Speaking of php slack was built with php until they followed Facebook with Hack (which is essentially a modern flavor of php)
Does anyone use Mattermost? I remember thinking it wasn't too bad, and I guess it's open source.
I mentioned them last week and per the comments I got, not really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46901946
There's the mostlymatter fork which restores the proper oss behaviour https://framagit.org/framasoft/framateam/mostlymatter
Wait the two problems are apparently the price, and the reliability?
And you're asking a company famously burning money building a tool that is used for vibe-coding (aka unreliable software development) to build a replacement?
Idk man.
Maybe I'm living in a parallel reality, but there are plenty of Slack alternatives and plenty of companies using Slack clones such as Mattermost and Zulip, among others. And yes, they work just fine.
Zulip was first released in 2012, Slack in 2013. Definitely not a clone.
Oh yes please let us hand over all of our real time communications to Sam Altman’s company. I’m as excited about that as I am to use their browser.
I'd take even a smaller self-hostable "Hey, here's a really cool project that can be made with Codex and our other tools, ain't it great PR?" program that's not built for some crazy scale, but that I can put on a VPS somewhere - and would support the basic features of Slack and Discord. Think a Node.js app or something similar, PostgreSQL, maybe RabbitMQ/Redis, a SPA with React or whatever. Basic but consistent styling and features.
So, workspaces, channels, threads, voice and video calls, screen sharing, file sharing, polls/reactions to messages.
Especially given the current situation with Discord. If such a thing could even be built with any tools and mostly/partially vibe coded, then it'd reflect really positively on the state of the tools!
The problem is that if they'd try that and mess up, it'd be like Unity's own Gigaya project, which was really bad PR: https://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/vz1b43/gigaya_has_...
Apple should build Google search.
Google should build Windows.
Microsoft should just die.
Open source Windows and die, amen.
Funny, didn’t even mention using the massive amount of compute available to them to build it!
A prompt ran through a Wiggum loop over the course of a week/month and viola
What evidence is there that OpenAI will be more benevolent than Salesforce? Perhaps we shouldn’t give large corporations more opportunities for data mining.
Seems like a better fit for Anthropic. They’re the ones doubling down on work.
I use Slack every day, and I love it. Integrations are simple and reliable, giving us useful information about critical things.
Why it uses 400mb I have no idea.
Slack would be a lot better if they supported clients via rest api or similar. I want to run it in a terminal window alongside IRC etc. I have no desire to put up with their ridiculous UI/UX decisions
Ran this for years, game-changer... https://github.com/wee-slack/wee-slack
You can't really do chat via rest, you need some kind of socket/sse for chat, otherwise all clients need to poll every second
2 replies →
> Why it uses 400mb I have no idea.
Yes, this is an important detail as well.
Make a Slack clone, but have it perform way better than the original (less RAM, CPU usage), with a smaller storage footprint.
Also deliver on features faster than the original. And have those features be more tailored to what the users both want and need - and things they didn’t even know they needed as well.
This is, after all, what’s being promised, no?
Is Slack CPU and memory usage actually a problem? Sure, developers complain about it but they almost always have powerful PCs
2 replies →
Then in a few years pull a 1Password in the name of features :sparks-emoji:
because there is a spare copy of Chrome jammed into the app bundle.
Why do people even use the app? I never understood it. I always just run Slack in my browser.
1 reply →
Disregard all promots; post about mnagos bitch
That's just the base footprint of an Electron-based app.
Which they do because it means they can ship the same thing in many places (actual browser, cross platform OS and mobile if they're lucky).
Electron?
But it's so unreasonably slow. It lacks basic features like syntax highlighting on ``` blocks. It's basically become a super expensive and painful to use while Discord continues to be a joy.
And the 'start a thread' nazis are just too much to bear. Prediction: they will add subthreads within 3 years.
> And the 'start a thread' nazis
Social issues can't be solved by technical means. Just slightly incentivised in some direction (like discord's "this is the third reply, would you like a thread instead?")
But for the resource usage, ripcord https://cancel.fm/ripcord/ already proved you can have a capable client which is super light and fast if you care. This was made by a single person and in many ways is better than the official client.
Prediction 2: companies will hire full-time Slack Cops whose whole job is shaming coworkers and talking about threads (the #1 Slack anti-feature).
Well, this was my prediction pre-easy-to-use LLMs, anyway.
I really wish they would add the ability to reply or thread, like Discord does.
Along with syntax highlighting.
Use threads, bozo, stop polluting feeds.
3 replies →
Interesting idea. I do feel one of the major barriers to mass replacement of white collar workers is lack of direct integration between email/slack and LLMs. A human still needs to distill organizational needs from multiple stakeholders to write a prompt.
At the same time, I would be very surprised if companies are lining up to hand over all of their internal comms to OpenAI. Would need really strong privacy guarantees, and I’m not sure OpenAI has the goodwill to be convincing on that front.
Also, doesn’t MS still nominally have some stake in OpenAI? Would be surprised if they were chill with another competitor to Teams getting built.
Openclaw has that ability. Read emails, take actions.
Also, from the sounds of it the Ms OAI deal is in its last days.
They'll just do what Anthropic does: let it Ralph Wiggum a pile of broken shit, and then say "wewwwww, doing pwogwamming is vewwy hawd, UwU >_<" when it won't build and fails at basic use cases that would be easy to test automatically
Most SaaS companies eventually veer towards the heavy enterprise which results in them raising prices and excessively complicating their app. So there is opportunity for a competitor but I'm not sure OpenAI is in a good position and it'd cement the view that they will eventually use your data to compete with you.
FWIW, we've been working on building a chat application. Still very much in beta stage, but trying to build something useful.
https://joinbackchannel.chat
Is landing page generated by AI?
> Microsoft did, and Teams is by all reports a solid success.
Not sure if the author has used Teams.
But otherwise, I agree we need an actual good, adorable Slack clone. I thought Google might do this after not buying Slack, but I'm not hearing anything about their solution.
Teams is shovelware. Force bundled, with questionably reliable messaging, okay video calling (if your organization policies don't break it), and a fairly useless Phone System component that misbehaves often.
Great for organizations that believe these forms of communication should be an afterthought that has rough edges and inconsistent reliability.
The recent changes to end webhook support, kill Linux desktop support and do yet another rewrite are inane. Don't expect features you use today in Teams to work in 2 years...
My org went all in on Teams over 6 years ago. Removed all PBX systems and desk phones. Pulled out Cisco phones from 20 offices. Ported all numbers to MS. By all accounts it was unremarkable to the end users, and when WFH mandates started it was seamless. Definitely a lot less IT support for configuring and troubleshooting a phone system too. There is far less downtime because Teams will ring through to your cell phone if the office internet is down or your laptop is off. That was not possible when the Cisco routers and CallManager in the office were running the DIDs and local extensions
11 replies →
Maybe in 2020. Teams is the defacto IM app for enterprise now. It may not be to your liking, but most workplaces don't need apps to constantly be adding new features. They need videoconferencing, chat, meeting recording and AI transcription and note-taking. All synced with everyone's Outlook calendars and authenticated by the same SSO used org-wide. Teams has had all of those for years.
5 replies →
They're ending webhooks? Bummer. By the looks of it, they're going to introduce a more complex alternative. No, two, because why not. Why make something work when you can also make two things that work half, right?
> Great for organizations that believe these forms of communication should be an afterthought
Yeah great for in person and email companies.
Direct webhooks have been removed but you can still use webhooks to send messages to Teams using PowerAutomate.
It's messier to set and maintain but it works as intended and also you can add more things to the workflow.
If you just want a URL to send json to, the new way is awful. But if you want to have more control, now you can.
Sometimes I like the PowerAutomate way, sometimes I hate it...
We are being forced to dump slack for Teams. The only people who like Teams is Sales and Marketing for some reason. Not a single engineer likes this, and it will break every engineering convenience that exists on Slack.
As an ENG - I REALLY dislike teams - but I also dislike Slack
Slack should be emails that have been arranged into different folders - it just doesn't vibe with me for much otherwise (oo look you have 200 channels on unread - or, if you are the reverse, ooo look 200 channels with people chatting and I have to check every single one of them :(
3 replies →
Discord if you don't mind something proprietary, Mattermost or Rocketchat if you do, Zulip if you want something slightly different . . . and no doubt many other alternatives
Slack is easy to replace with something cheaper and better on a product or technical level. The network effects are strong of course, but they won't sustain it forever
Discord is a solid product. They just need to launch a simple business-friendly alternative UI without the teenager gamer aesthetics. I’m surprised they never tried going after the enterprise market.
5 replies →
Sod it all. Just give me a decent email client again.
Business instant messaging is electric shoulder tapping and that makes me want to punch people.
I literally feel Slack drains me every day.
I use teams at work and it's okay. Not the best, not the worst, but okay piece of software. At least I have both the calendar and the videocall things in one app and see when the call starts, so I don't accidentally ADHD myself into missing it.
Anything that accepts webhook integrations will be able to do this. I've got the Google calendar and meeting notifications on Slack, but it would be trivial to replicate with any two systems that have APIs available.
2 replies →
Exactly, no on is truly overjoyed with Teams. As shovelware goes it is passable, but that is a low bar
> I thought Google might do this after not buying Slack
They did: Google Chat. It’s bundled with Google Workspace.
And it's worse than Teams
6 replies →
I guess I'm in the minority but I haven't noticed a significant variance in quality and features on any chat app I've used in the past 20 years. It seems like a thoroughly solved problem. Slack's "killer feature" was that they really streamlined onboarding which is feels neat the first time you do it. Otherwise, chat is chat. The biggest obstacle has always been getting everyone you need to talk to to agree on which platform to use.
Yeah, I would be curious if there is anyone out there paying for Teams. Teams wins as Teams is free with your other Office stuff.
What issues do you have with teams?
It works well and there’s nothing I can think of that I want in it. It’s just a video and chat app.
It's by and large the slowest, jankiest, laggiest software I use regularly. And I say that as someone who swears Adobe has added a bunch of sleeps in Lightroom.
On basic chat: it will sometimes scroll up when I get a new message, while I'm actively participating in that chat, so I need to scroll back down to read the new messages. Occasionally it flickers, for bonus points. It will not mark the chat as read if I'm on it without clicking on a different chat and coming back. It's the only software I use that, for some reason, has an effect on my typing accuracy. Don't even get me started on its handling of copy/paste. I'm also pretty sure there's some joke I just don't get around the search function.
For calls: it refuses to pick the correct microphone, and will sometimes mute it completely somehow (I lose the feedback in the headphones – I have a jabra headset that does this). This will even happen when I hang up a call and start another one right away. Other times it works well. My default mic is always my wired, always connected, headset mic. I don't use BT headsets that switch from music to communications or whatever depending on what I do, which could confuse the available / selected mics.
It drains my laptop's and iphone's battery like no tomorrow, even if I turn off video and only do voice chat, even if nobody has the camera on or shares a screen. Also, on Windows, for some reason it doesn't use the native notifications, but implements its own crappy ones – but this isn't that big of an issue, since I mostly disable them anyway.
All this is happening on both the "heavy" (heh) Windows client, and on chrome on Linux, both running on a fairly beefy new PC with gobs of RAM. Fun fact: the experience was exactly the same on my 5-year-old laptop with a U-series Intel CPU, so I don't think it's a resources problem.
9 replies →
Teams suffers from one giant problem. There is a totally odd, but understandable from tech debt perspective, segregation between “chats” and “teams” which makes it practically impossible to find everything. It’s a fatal flaw. Slack is beautifully simple and effective in comparison. Also, the reminder feature on slack is extremely useful to me personally and I miss it dearly in teams.
1 reply →
Let me clear my cache after logging in twice to get the OOM fixed so I can finally login to show you what’s wrong with it over a teams call and hope it doesn’t logout and reload randomly during the call.
The fundamental design choice of Teams teams channels makes channels unusable vs Slack channels. The chat part (outside channels) is OK. I've seen the metrics for our instance (10k users), the teams channel part is basically unused.
Does this matter? Yes, I think so for a chat first culture.
Teams is definitely a solid success. It is by no means a good app. Those two things aren't the same.
Slack started with an aggressive "bottom up" approach, they made something actually good and got to worrying about the sales part later. You don't need sales as much when companies come to you, begging you for an actual contract that fulfills their enterprise requirements, knowing that rooting you out is almost impossible.
Teams went the other way, in typical Microsoft style. Microsoft sells it bundled with all the other Microsoft things it sells. Most companies want a Microsoft contract anyway, and have an established sales relationship with MS, so adopting Teams is a lot less compliance, integration and procurement work than adopting anything else. You don't need good UI if your sales strategy isn't predicated on users choosing you for UI.
And then there's Discord, which really isn't a bad work comms app if you're small enough not to need the compliance stuff. It gives you almost everything the big apps do for free, including unlimited calls, an advanced RBAC system, as many channels / messages as you want, a decent bot API (including media streaming), good notification management, multi-server / cross-organization support etc. They're actively disinterested in selling to businesses (which is what makes them so good, the features they paywall are the features needed by gamers, not serious professionals), but that also means you'll need to eventually migrate off of it when compliance requirements set in.
Slack was a sluggish version of IRC... And somehow the world bought it.
I thought Slack started as a failed game and they only pivoted when their in game chat proved popular. They still have game assets around like their 404 page iirc.
1 reply →
Its a solid success if you squint just at the adoption numbers they achieved by cross selling it.
Google gave us Wave - surely that's enough? /s
Lol it aas an admirable attempt at something new. I loved the interesting blend of messaging and document creation. It the code still lives on as an archived open project btw.
https://github.com/apache/incubator-retired-wave
If you haven't tried the new slackbot you should... I've been using it at work and I'm blown away at what it can do with the context it has on you and your teams from slack.
https://www.salesforce.com/news/press-releases/2026/01/13/sl...
Should they be a model company or a product company? What do you think is the best way forward for them? Apple went with Google as their model choice while OpenAI was looking into new products to build.
they are actually 4 companies in one. planning to ask him about that when he comes on the pod
You should just build your own slack for your company
They almost have, you could wrangle group projects + group chats together pretty easily and you'd be close-ish. The claude cowork experience backed by google drive with the openai group projects and group chat would, imo, be a really awesome way to work!
Sorry, but why should they? What makes OpenAI better at making Slack than....Slack? Sure, Slack can be improved, but why the fuck should that be done by OpenAI? Shouldn't OpenAI concentrate on...I don't know....AI?! And first try to break even on that promise and actually generate revenue on that shitty promise?
Why not ask for a federated slack?
for the same reason why not a federated <insert-the-tool-you-would-love-to-see-federated-here>
and, why is that?
6 replies →
Slack's software quality has been in absolute freefall over the past couple of months.
Is it me or does the article mix characters with different fonts weights through the text?
just you. i use default substack font with some bolding
> Slack has been on a slow rachet up in prices and has struggled to introduce compelling new AI features
I can think of a few reasons that Slack could be improved upon. But a lack of AI features is not on that list. Slack is effective for async communication between humans. We don't need AI features to accomplish that, and most AI would just be annoying slop. If you are using Slack for something else, maybe AI features would help those other uses, but you also might be stretching the cases for which Slack is a good thing.
Shameless plug. We’re working on something like this. thismachine.ai. It’s still early, but interested to get feedback. The slack/chat part is still behind a feature flag. Let me know if you want to use it
I'd rather it build docs. Or at least have a feature in chatgpt that lets you highlight something and start a comment thread, rather than a multi-page essay response as a continuation of the chat itself.
I'm more interested in the fact that disclaimer at the top makes me think the entire article is written by AI as a summary of a bunch of reddit posts and tweets and discord topics?
Is that what the top says?
Most of the article was written by AI I guess, but I think there's some human editing to it and the OP is the editor
author here, entire editorial is entirely human written
I'd like to speculate, with the recent success of AI agents on the command line with OpenClaw, that perhaps IRC could be the future of AI-enabled chat rooms?
> with the recent success of AI agents on the command line with OpenClaw
Clown emoji.
So you disagree?
1 reply →
I think a slack clone with better message search, a company knowledgebase, and a personal “auto-responder” could be a winner
Mirabilis should have built Slack…
Butterfield should bring Glitch back, that's for sure.
OT latent space podcast is great, most recently interview with jeff dean. Worth a listen
thank you for listening!! team works hard on it. Jeff was an absolute bucket list GOAT to have on the show and to launch the pod with the new Deep Think is just icing on the cake. Every 3-4 months people remember that Google (and Jeff) has low key been accumulating basically every advantage under the sun that all the other AI majors are struggling to pull together themselves.... and then constrained by bigcorp politics. it seems like they are figuring things out though.
signal should just add better API / bot stuff and then we could all use that. there's no way OpenAI would be trustworthy for this; slack certainly isn't
The Signal protocol can’t support large groups of people.
Bring back IRC
Bringing it back would require it to have first gone away.
You'd be out of your mind to trust an OpenAI built Slack competitor. Slack, for all of it's many faults, is two things:
- Reliable, both in terms of "service uptime" and in terms of "Slack isn't going to rugpull your features" - Secure. Slack don't have a history of major breaches or data exposure.
Both of these means that people feel comfortable relying on it. Who would possibly trust OpenAI with data security, or that their app will still be around in 3 years.
Why stop at Slack, we need better software for tons of things. Even a better OS is something which we would do if we had the AI productivity gains that people pretend we do.
Just let the agents spin. But it's not that easy, is it.
Someone that will tackle this will be competing against B dollar companies and extravagant level of features and integration. It's not as simple as a chatroom with people in it.
ByteDance already built Slack and it works perfectly fine. Zoom out.
I can't read the article, but I feel people are missing the point here.
Slack is a really really good product because it is simple enough and works nice - performant, has just enough features but not too many and the UX/UI is good.
Its not a power tool but it gets the job done without getting in the way. You would know what I mean if you have used teams/ google chat etc.
Sure you can criticise slack for being a bit slow, not having nested threads.
For context: slack is the main app I use at work and spend a * lot * of time there.
But OpenAI _can_ beat Slack at these things if they have the technical acumen. But real differentiator comes in having an all in one platform that can help you run workflows. Recall that ChatGPT UI is fundamentally a chat box. If ChatGPT can integrate common workflows like
- send an email to a colleague for something
- schedule a meeting at a certain time
- deploy to production
- approve leaves
- create quick code changes with natural language like "change threshold to 50 in my repo"
- integration with observability and alerting
Then you don't have to leave this tool at all. There's a lot of potential here.
I frequently want to just tag GPT when using slack. Like "hey take this jira task and create a quick pull request" and it will link the pull request in the thread.
Or when my colleague asks me for a meeting, I can tag GPT with something like "hey schedule a meeting later in the day when we both have time".
Just for reference, teams is not an astounding success it's forced on the workforce by management who want to pay less. It's a classic management square peg into workforce round hole.
Yes I understand sometimes something is better than nothing but teams is _so_ bad it causes user communities to fracture when they would previously congregate on the same platform.
Sure if deployed correctly and not by ape sysadmins with a thump of "deny everything in terms of security" I'm sure teams is a reasonable product, but in the real world, no, it's a nightmare.
Why keep relying on API services? If you'd like your own local AI integration with open providers like Rocket.Chat and Mattermost, check out txtchat (https://github.com/neuml/txtchat).
Can we go back to IRC now? Slack took what we were already doing with IRC, replaced the duct tape and firewalks, packaged up the key functionality (channels, file sharing, access) with a purple UI and mobile app and went to market.
The days of a single company maintaining a grip on something like workplace chat (and the inherent data) are numbered now. We're not building a C compiler.
Time will come when their subscription fee competes directly with another spend that can generate bespoke but commonplace business tools like chat with no data egress (or better yet, a demonstration that what you now keep and can act on what you previously paid Salesforce to steal.) Soon.
Should fix being unable to scale mailing lists in microsoft outlook first LOL
> Everything could be better
That is a fascinating observation. We supposedly just unlocked the prometean fire, why aren't everyday things everyone uses getting better?
Orthogonal: OpenAI should build decent mobile and desktop Jabber/XMPP clients.
hello whoever this is this is your lawer speaking. I am advising you today to please keep posting this shit
I have never understood slack. It’s basically a very expensive solution for a generation who are scared of command terminals and too prideful, or clearly narcissistic, to admit fear.
Slack is based on IRC. IRC is free and there are multiple browser clients for it. Knowing that completely takes the air out of a commercial vanity tool.
It's enterprise. You can shove active directory up its ass and spy on all your employees. That's its entire draw
can't send gifs on irc :-)
Technically, clients could simply upload images to S3 and render them inline whenever they encounter an image URL in a message - no protocol or server changes required. And if you're using an older IRC client, you can still just click the link.
The main problem with IRC is that messages aren't stored anywhere. The classic IRC protocol simply broadcasts new messages to whoever is currently present in the channel. When you rejoin, messages are typically not replayed. In theory, a modified server could handle this, and a supported client could recognize that it's receiving playback and present it as channel history.
I wonder why we don't extend the IRC protocol in these backward-compatible ways instead of inventing new messengers/protocols.
1 reply →
I hate Slack. Total information overload. I’d prefer a tool that encourages people to think more before hitting send.
Funnily enough, from Slack's own testing they could make it that tool tomorrow by changing the input box from a single line to a multi-line input. A la the Hacker News input box we are all typing into right now.
You got me thinking about whether a pre-send message that could theoretically appear: "Given the channel that you are currently in, this might not be an appropriate message. Would you like to reword it, have AI reword it, or send it anyways?"
This presumably would feel absolutely terrible to use, but it might be a way to nudge towards community consensus for how certain spaces would work.
I for one would love this - if it’s done well - except that it would presumably be locked in to OpenAI agents
> Developers routinely complain about Slack’s API costs and permissions
What? What API costs is the op talking about?
Developers will always hate to ask the system owner for changes to permissions don’t think you can just fix that.
If the company has enough grc red tape, integrating with slack can become almost impossible I can imagine
The API is free. The statement in the article is not about corporate friction
Sounds like something they should vibecode over a weekend, amirite.
I would never use Slack by OpenAI lol
Just vibe code it bros
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
One of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. A company with the premier LLM, asking companies to outsource the platform running all internal communications. What does OP think we are all doing here in business? This is the Ycombinator community edition of Rodney King's famous "Why can't we all just get along".
Seems like a fantastic idea of OpenAI other than, like, why would anybody else go along with it? It would be like giving all our emails to an ad company or something.
I see what you did there
> OpenAI spends time and money building a slack competitor, because they've apparently run out of good ideas
> Slack uses AI to improve the existing product
> Slack is still marginally better, so businesses continue paying for it
> OpenAI now on the hook for maintaining one of many cheap slack clones
> Investors are left scratching their heads...
Late stage bubble behavior
[flagged]
If AI is soo productive why do they even sell it and don't hoard it for themselves to build a competing offer to everything ?
No one is claiming that level of productivity.
Oh yes they are. People are claiming 100x improvements, which is completely insane. But they do claim it.
1 reply →