What a patronizing and condescending piece. All I got from this is that Microsoft has launched something in this space that is really worth taking a look at, if it prompts a competitor to write and publish something like this.
This was published in the Times today and it came across as passive aggressive and insecure to me, but I'm curious to hear what others think of this stunt...<p>Link to Times ad: <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/stewart/status/793811616760496128" rel="nofollow">https://mobile.twitter.com/stewart/status/793811616760496128</a>
This is really terrible. Since nobody's name is actually on it, I assume their marketing team wrote it.<p>I understand that Slack's valuation is based in part on the idea that they can convert large portions of the enterprise market, and that Microsoft has a pretty great track record of burning that market down. It makes sense that they'd want to write something to maintain their claim on the enterprise market.<p>But this piece can't decide who it's talking to, and so it's probably pretty cringe-y to everyone.
"We’re glad you’re going to be helping us define this new product category."<p>Wow, and folks give <i>Apple</i> a hard time about acting like they invented stuff. The hubris of Slack thinking there's some moral high ground for them to take is astounding.<p>But their post does have me searching the web for Microsoft's offering. Because I don't know what the hell Slack is on about, and I'm thinking what Microsoft has might be better than the disjointed web-app-in-a-native-wrapper thing Slack has going.<p>EDIT: found it, thanks to <i>whalesalad</i>'s post in this thread. Okay, given that the MSFT client looks a hell of a lot like Slack, I can see where they're coming from. Still, it strikes me as someone who wrote the ubiquitous to-do app and then buys an ad in the NYT when Apple includes the Reminders app in iOS, welcoming Apple as they "define this new product category".
Anyone else find it a bit ironic (?) that they say "an open platform is essential" but haven't open sourced their core code base? That feels like a bit of a misstep to me.
When did Slack become an "open platform"?<p>Ugh, really hate work going this way. Slack is an all-day all-hands meeting with no agenda. I miss async email.
For those wondering what this is in response to, <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/25/13405200/microsoft-teams-slack-competitor-launch" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/25/13405200/microsoft-teams-...</a>
Not really sure what the message is here. Somebody from MS could just answer:
"Thanks for the advice. We've been there before. We swallowed whole industries without chewing and we have killed more competitors that we can remember. We hope that you will still exist in the year to drive our creativity. Sincerely, MS"
Ironic. I don't think Slack is particularly well designed.<p>Use it every day. And it's always unpleasant.<p>Why does it say "New mentions" when I wasn't actually mentioned, just someone said something in some other chat.<p>Also, I find it pretty tedious to switch back and forth between discussions.<p>In terms of UI design, I suspect they don't have a good team.<p>Maybe it just tries to please too many people?
Several commentators here seem unaware that "open platform" and "open source" are distinct concepts. From the Wikipedia article on "open platform" [1]:<p>"<i>In computing, an open platform describes a software system which is based on open standards, such as published and fully documented external application programming interfaces (API) that allow using the software to function in other ways than the original programmer intended, without requiring modification of the source code. Using these interfaces, a third party could integrate with the platform to add functionality.[1] The opposite is a closed platform.</i>"<p>An open platform can be closed source. A good example is Microsoft Windows.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_platform" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_platform</a>
Microsoft Teams [1] is apparently what this is in response to. I would not have even heard of it had this piece not gone out, ironically enough.<p>[1] <a href="https://products.office.com/en-US/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software" rel="nofollow">https://products.office.com/en-US/microsoft-teams/group-chat...</a>
I think the time they spend agonizing over how to slip some humor into their release notes would be better spent making their platform faster or improving their convoluted message search.
If MS can nail the creation and organization of "micro channels", that would be a huge innovation in this space that Slack has not been able to figure out yet.<p>We are a 100% remote company and we use Slack and Teamspeak as our primary communication tools. Our biggest problem with Slack is when multiple conversations are happening in the same channel. There should be a way to segregate those convos into separate "theads", without having to make new channels.<p>That would be a huge win for whatever chat product can solve this pain point. Unfortunately, innovation is probably not a huge payoff since the competition would simply copy the feature =(
Of all the platforms my team has used, Slack has been the most "polished". Lots of things come under that, but its hard to define exactly. Speed, Design details, consistency etc. Product quality is just very high with Slack. Only Whatsapp comes close in some of those matters.
Dear Slack,<p>Try sending them an email - it's a better medium (pun-intended) for this, than an open opinion piece pushed to the general public.<p>Unless of course, you're marketing, in which case honesty can be a much better policy.
While I was aware of the MS product, I never took it seriously (I mean, it's from the same company that rebranded Lync to Skype for business).<p>Now that Slack has posted this, I intend to give this a look and a trial (hopefully it does not require an O365 subscription) as it just tells me that Slack is either annoyed or scared of Skype teams (either one being a good enough reason for consumers to check it out)
Ugh.<p>If you want to do something like this <i>right</i>, the way to do it is the way Data General wanted to do it when IBM, then the 800-pound gorilla of the computer world, entered into DG's minicomputer market. (Which is described in Tracy Kidder's classic book <i>The Soul of a New Machine</i> (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Soul-New-Machine-Tracy-Kidder/dp/0316491977" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Soul-New-Machine-Tracy-Kidder/dp/0316...</a>)<p>The ad they proposed was much simpler -- a full page that said only the following:<p><i>They say IBM's entry into minicomputers will legitimize the market.</i><p><i>The bastards say, welcome.</i>
Sometimes it's worth not writing things like this ...all Slack managed to do here was draw more attention to Microsoft's announcement. A way of marketing $$ if you ask me.
To me Slack was always just a shiny IRC clone where your sensitive communication data sits inside an American company.<p>I find it ironic that Slack calls Microsoft out for making something like Slack for the enterprise.<p>I sincerely hope one day we'll have something like <a href="https://matrix.org/" rel="nofollow">https://matrix.org/</a> and <a href="https://riot.im/" rel="nofollow">https://riot.im/</a> as the standard.
Since all the posts here seem pretty negative about Slack's response, I'm genuinely curious...how do you think a smaller company should respond when a huge company decides to enter their competitive space?<p>I ask because I've been an employee at multiple start ups before and seen this kind of situation happen multiple times. I have not yet seen a response that gets received well. And silence gets perceived by existing customers as weakness or fear.
> So welcome, Microsoft, to the revolution.<p>Honestly slack doesn't feel much different than IRC and wasn't it built on this originally. What revolution is this anyway? Lame.<p>And MS has had yammer for a while now (2012).<p><a href="https://www.yammer.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.yammer.com/</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yammer" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yammer</a>
What a disaster.<p>They speak about an open platform (forget open-source), just being open to communities that might benefit from their expertise.<p>Here is a piece from ages ago, what slack means for huge communities:
<a href="https://medium.freecodecamp.com/so-yeah-we-tried-slack-and-we-deeply-regretted-it-391bcc714c81" rel="nofollow">https://medium.freecodecamp.com/so-yeah-we-tried-slack-and-w...</a>
News to me that MS is launching a new product. I hate slack to begin with, but after using 'Skype For Business' my expectations are pretty low with this new product.<p>I'm assuming it's going to fail much like Yammer did - the screenshot looks like a rip-off of Slackanyways...
Slack somehow became the de facto standard for "internal IRC" but i do think it does many things not particularly well. Then writing an article like this as if their product is the reinvention of human communication feels patronizing and VERY cringy (to me anyway).
This was to expect. I don't wanna know how much companies didn't use Slack just because it seemed like something crazy and hip.<p>Now, before Slack has the time to become "old, known and reliable" Microsoft jumps in and steals these potential customers :D<p>I like it.
Flickr tried to patent something that I had invented. After the acquisition the Yahoo lawyers caught this and had to add me to the patents.<p>The "we are better" thing they claim is just marketing. They are as cutthroat as anybody else.<p>I have plenty of other stories.<p>Beware.
This was Slack's Liam Gallagher, moment. At the peak of their fame Oasis shits on the Beatles and every great band that has come before.<p>McCartly responds- "Now go and do better than The Beatles did"
This was one of the most stupid post I've seem a company publish. I don't know about what he is talking but I'm going to search it with a feeling that this guy is a looser.<p>Edit: more stupid than I thought! They bought a full page ad.
Edit 2: I hate M$, but Slack doesn't help either.
Thanks to Slack we now know that MS is launching a competitor.<p>Never mention the competition, always focus on your shit.<p>But yeah, we get it - first Facebook Workplace, now MS Team. Slack might get pushed into the feature/addon category faster than it can move into full product. Hard to reach the crazy valuation that way.