Unless Microsoft rebuilds Skype for the ground up, I don't see us leaving Slack for it. They had their chance, and they dropped the ball.
This. This exactly. Is it really unbelievable to assume Microsoft wouldn't attempt to build their own IRC+ clone and save a few billion while they are at it?
I do agree with you, Slack is much better than Skype, but I would add that Lync is just as good. I went from Lync to Slack (after changing jobs) and I would say that Lync not only works just as well but has more features a team would find useful. For instance, multi-user video+voice chat w/ great screensharing/presentation functionality.
Edit: Should mention I was using Lync in a Windows shop and now Slack in OSX. In Windows it worked perfectly but I could be convinced it had issues in OSX.
This was on Windows 7.
The problem seems to have been solved when we upgraded to Skype for Business a few months ago. There were a lot of other weird nonsensical bugs like this too, but that one was the one that caused me the most grief. Lync was been by far the worst piece of chat software I've ever used.
At the moment, Slack and Skype for Business have different feature sets. Skype for Business is geared towards voice and video conferencing, as you say. But now Slack is moving into Skype territory with video-conferencing services. Given their ability to deliver high-quality clients for multiple operating systems, they stand to make Lync (oops, Skype for Business) obsolete.
Lync 2013 was even worse! The message window was laggy in typing words out of the box and every UI animation was choppy. This was on a really beefy Dell (I forgot the specs). I was stuck in this awkward position where I had to defend the implementation even though (a) many people hated it (myself included), and (b) I actually used Pidgin because it was so much lighter (even if user discovery and lookup wasn't as great).
Fuck Lync. I love Slack. I can see why Microsoft attempted to acquire them, and I am super glad that they didn't.
1. http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/2/11147778/slack-voice-callin...
What I don't like with Lync 1. Screen sharing sucks. Its slow. Is it possible for them to use a technology similar to FreeNX? 2. Does not support multiple-client notification. I use multiple desktop and when you are logged on multiple Lync clients, messages will only go to a single client! 3. OSX client always crashes
What I don't like with Slack 1. Cool UX but sometimes the UI hangs and shows only a white, blank space
It may be relevant that I often work on remote teams. I can't just say aloud, "Hey, anybody know about foo?" In a Lync world I have to individually message one person at a time and await their response or open a chat with everyone which will go away almost immediately after the question is asked. And generally once people have said their no they close the window, the helpful response will not be viewed by most of the team.
Brilliant.
I think what them not buying Slack is implying is that they will start to try and actually compete with Slack directly. Instead of just internet telephony.
Skype on OSX looks much better now and I suspect if they're focusing on Skype instead of spending $8B, then you're looking at serious competition.
Plus, I would never use it professionally since Skype (and MS in general) are the extreme low in regards to privacy.
The funny thing is, they didn't just have a chance, they had a huge chance. My company can't currently use Slack because our regulatory environment (HIPAA) frowns on our data crossing other people's servers. An enterprise-focused Slack equivalent, hosted on client-owned hardware and with a focus on regulatory compliance, could have eaten a huge chunk of the market.
I used Skype for 6 years for work related stuff, and it wasn't great in terms of chat. Slack is WORLDS better. But Skype works GREAT for my interactions with family. The use cases are extremely different.
My preference would be to keep the current Skype as-is, or maybe even simplify it, and also add a new "Skype For Teams" product.
http://www.ibtimes.com/microsoft-admits-keeping-92-billion-o...
Also interesting to think that Slack could be worth so much. Look at ICQ, Microsoft instant messenger, etc.
It seems as though slack like tools get eclipsed every 5-10 years as a new generation comes along with a new favorite tool.
I'd be interested in hearing from someone who would argue that slack will be a dominate communication tool in 5-8 years time and still exist in a meaningful way in 10 years time.
Slack has no way of letting me know who's read the messages. Come on, it's 2016. I asked them about this and they told me the only solution is it get each contact to add a sunglasses icon as they read each message! What a joke.
A good example is Yahoo Mail... this product is used by so many people, and was supposedly overhauled a few years ago, yet it is mediocre in so many ways.
You've definitely got a point there. Although I do want to mention that part of the reason Slack eclipsed other tools was, in part, its Websocket based protocol. They have created a fairly complete unified messaging application because of it (IMO).
They were the first movers in the area. I don't know if I would provide much of a meaningful discussion regarding the longer term viability of Slack, but I think they have a chance to be meaningful, maybe even dominate in 10 years time.
They are already Websocket based and they are moving towards WebRTC support...if they take that direction and add P2P support to provide truly secure encrypted communications where certificates are negotiated P2P, then I think they will explode to even greater heights than they have already achieved. Of course, this is not a simple task, but the business implications of truly secure communications channels would be compelling for most corporate enterprises.
Now this is not the same as 100% secure endpoints, but it would be a massive step in the right direction.
Edit: Forgot to add P2P link... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/API/WebRT...
In terms of tech I actually see Slack as behind in the default product (no threaded conversations >_<), but maybe the ecosystem they're trying to foster will actually be useful or maybe the money they've spent on marketing will be irrelevant and they will collapse due to overfunding.
They won't support p2p encryption because server side search wouldn't be possible.
I think people too often overlook Slack's integrations. Yes, Slack is "just" chat or "just" a glorified IRC. Or is it?
I don't know how long it would take me to integrate my Stripe, Github, Trello, and Zendesk streams into IRC to the point where I could set it and forget it. I think for business users at least, using this type of setup _effectively_ could make it hard to move away.
I can't even imagine what it might mean for " Stripe, Github, Trello, and Zendesk streams" to be integrated into Slack, or why I might want them to be.
Want to share a gist with somebody? Just send a link to the gist to the chat channel, and people can click it.
I wonder if this rule holds just as much for IRC - for most FOSS projects, IRC is the go-to choice, and it's been that way for a long time.
Another popular one now is Discord, which is Slack-like but anecdotally better for large sets of users because of a more robust admin/permissions scheme.
Unlike ICQ, MSN, AIM, YIM, etc., Slack is explicitly intended for companies and businesses to use as a work tool. There are some OSS communities that use it as well, but Slack very clearly discourages that use case.
The "stickiness" of work tools is higher than consumer-oriented applications in general, but especially for something like Slack, which is focusing on integrating other productivity features or products[0], I don't think ICQ is a great pattern of what we should expect.
[0] as we've seen by their announcement just this week
Building the ecosystem would be tough, but the capability seems doable by Microsoft or any other company with resources (Google?).
I'd say fix it first.
Somehow the Skype name has gone from being an asset to being a liability to the point where I cannot understand why they renamed Lync to "Skype for business".
It's still a huge clusterfuck of a rebranding. The two clients are just barely compatible, and it's a huge mess when you're building a Skype for Business tool, and the users think they can use regular Skype to do anything with it.
Hopefully "investing in Skype" is a code word for building out an API for Office 365 Skype integrations that actually works. They've only been promising it for two or three years.
Don't fix it, just rewrite it. Honestly. If they're focusing on Skype I think that would be great. The feats of that program are innumerable, including breaking system-wide sound settings. I simply can not fathom why it would want to change them.
As for "Skype for Business," it's significantly less stable than Skype. If Lync fails we switch to Skype.
I am glad that Slack will not be eaten by Microsoft. I hope they really do implement voice soon.
They have! It's in beta, but we've been using it at my workplace for 2 days now. Audio only so far. Better audio quality than anything else we use (appear.in, lync, hangouts, among others).
Integrated into slack, so you click a button in a channel to start a call anyone in the channel can join. Nice.
Most recently, Skype told me I've lost control of my gmail account an invited me to create a hotmail account to link with my Skype account instead. Wtf?
That said, I think MS made the right call given that they already own Skype. It could be good - great, even - if they actually tried. They don't need a Slack acquisition for that, but they probably could do with rebuilding every native app they have from the ground up, every single one is awful.
I wonder if MS acquired Skype today (i.e. "The New Microsoft") whether they'd have been more successful.
It's very interesting seeing the seamless merger of Skype into the Messaging, People, and Phone apps in Windows 10. Having finally figured out the new Windows 10 Skype Video app I realized that I could uninstall the classic desktop app and the Windows 8 version of Skype mobile that is (weirdly) still in the Windows Store on mobile as if it is still a useful app (and in which case it is not), unlike its short-lived tablet/desktop counterpart.
You can still see some of the uneven edges: the reason I had to figure out the Skype Video app was that it is the only one that currently supports accepting or making Skype contact requests, before you can link them in People. (I presume that sort of functionality should eventually merge in the People app more directly?) Also, there's still that slight friction between traditional Skype accounts and using Microsoft accounts for Skype that I'm unsure if there will ever be a clean fix.
I think that the "Skype Video" should be named something like Videophone to better align with brand-less Messaging, Phone app names, but that's a marketing quibble.
I do like the way that SMS messaging and Skype messaging interleave in the Messaging app now. It's nice having only one app for that. I wish it supported merging in Facebook's Messenger as well, but I realize that won't happen for many, many reasons.
As for Skype for Business, I think it's been solid since its Lync-branded days. I'm curious if they can get the sort of "platform leverage" we are seeing on the consumer side of things, but it doesn't necessarily need it. If they make it more Slack-like, that could be interesting.
Microsoft also owns GroupMe (www.groupme.com) and that solution has been pretty cool as well. I was surprised to find how focused Microsoft has quietly become on messaging products.
It is possible that the skype team has a different standard, different priorities imposed by the managers.
> rebuilding every native app they have from the ground up, every single one is awful
On Mac OS X, which is what I use, it's acceptable. I found it to be fairly acceptable on iOS as well, though you can't rely on receiving group chat messages in time (in all honesty, I think that's a feature :)). I don't use Windows, I imagine it's fine there.
On Linux it's super awful. I have hope for the new web interface to replace my needs for a Linux client, but the web interface is awful as well. On Android last year it leaked my battery like crazy. Nowadays it's maybe better in battery usage, but I had problems with my microphone - if I mute and then un-mute, then it can happen for the mic to not recover and I have to reinitiate the call. It's super annoying.
My personal feeling is that Microsoft does not invest enough resources in these clients. On the primary platforms they always seem to be one or two bugs away from being OK. On Linux it's like the same client from 5 years ago and it still works, but it never got any love from Microsoft. So I think they simply didn't give a crap, hoping to lure people into Lync or something. Which is too bad, because Skype always had great potential, it still has.
Shame really, we used to be pretty heavy cross-platform users of Skype. But it had annoying problems with group limits and audio quality before the Microsoft acquisition, and that quality seemed to take a nosedive shortly afterward. On the positive side, there are at least better alternatives cropping up.
Most acquisitions by big businesses, either early or late stage, destroy value. Big biz thinks they can innovate by buying. Smaller biz wants an exit. The innovation exits on acquisition and after earn-out. Both suffer and we all lose what could have been the next Google.
And as much as I like the "new" Microsoft, I certainly would hate to see Outlook, Office, and other corporatey scrap spilling into Slack.
If you have a real low level technology, an acquisition can be a good thing, because the big corp could integrate it some of their products and increase the spreading.
But yeah, if we look at Skype and WhatsApp, it's probably good that Slack didn't get acquired.
Still, I look at Skype and realize that Slack would have probably declined in quality after an acquisition. Kind of glad it didn't pan out.
Fucking horrorshow
https://www.microsoft.com/investor/Stock/AcquisitonHistory/A... (warning, asked for an MS Login first)
From their results from previous acquisitions, I don't understand what they think they would get by purchasing Slack (unless it is a purely defensive move against Slack developing an in-house document collaboration service, Office 365/Google Docs style).
One can only dream …
Slack is basically an IRC server with bots. Office communicator / Msn messenger/ whatever it is now / is installed on every Windows / office machine and ties into the moat used apps in the world.
MS-Slack ought to have "Mary just updated the Walmart contract" messages flinging around every marketing department in the world.
The fact it does not is testament to how far Giants can fall (in the 80s and 90s Microsoft would have already danced on Slacks grave).
Larry And Sergey need to study Microsoft a lot more carefully than "it was Ballmers fault" to try and avoid the same fate.
edit: to expand. Slack has 0 technology moat. The reason Github has been so successful and has gone many years without significant competition, is that it is an open platform in the sense that I have my personal, work, and private repos there. Many open source stuff is up there, and the platform allows me to contribute to my private repos, public repos and quickly download software.
To some extent slack has this idea where you can have 3 or 4 organizations in the app, but user to user seems to not be implemented, or at least non-obvious. Everything is siloed in an org.
lots of companies and apps are working on chat and are substitutes for pieces. It was not obvioius Github could make money or was significant for a long time. Professional chat is the opposite.
* Low barrier to entry
* high competition
* limited revenue/margin
* open source alternatives
* largely based on users/social proof. e.g. could get myspaced.
* competing in a space that is "hot" and many larger companies are moving in, already poised to take this.
Hipchat/Flowdock/probably others existed before Slack, and are still largely interchangeable at this point, but they're not investing so heavily in marketing.
I think a direct comparison to MySpace is inaccurate since neither they nor their competitors are directly viral (yet?), but they could certainly be replaced.
The question is: who would want to spend a pile of money trying to outmarket Slack? It's hard to tell what their sales figures are, but if they get lodged in the public's view as the company that does this, it will take concerted, capital-intensive effort to dislodge them, and why would you go to that effort for a low margin space?
Open Source is really not relevant in this space since the price is cheap and you're paying for convenience.
http://community.skype.com/t5/Linux/Why-is-Skype-on-Linux-st...
http://thevarguy.com/open-source-application-software-compan...
Also, I added $10 skype credit a while back when I needed to make few international phone calls. I used about $3 of it. The rest $7 was in my account for a while and then it disappeared. What's the reasoning behind that? It's totally unacceptable to have credits disappear like that. In that same period I added $10 to Viber as well and I still have $8 remaining on it even after 1.5 years.
https://blog.discordapp.com/the-robot-revolution-has-unoffic...
I saw some posts mentioning that a relatively large project had switched to it for support (Reactiflux http://www.reactiflux.com/ ).
Edit:googled the project
When eBay acquired Skype there was little willing adoption of it for IMs at eBay corporate. AIM (through whatever client) was the de facto standard. Management didn't like this but also didn't have the courage to say, "Skype is what you're using now."
So there was an embarrassingly transparent mandate from "IT" that AIM was disallowed due to a vague (but critical) "security" concern. That somehow persisted across versions and years.
This was sort of my experience of working at eBay and my impression of its management in a nutshell.
Skype may be good for voice/video, I don't know. It's a terrible instant messenger. The only one I ever used where I had to worry about it swallowing messages and couldn't just assume the recipient got them.
And Prism or no Prism-- Skype was a $1bn present from Microsoft to the intelligence community. Even if they never snooped on anything (we know they have) they did re-engineer skype in a manner that allows it to be subject to more traditional CALEA trap and trace techniques, as well a numerous side channel attacks and traffic interception. The "secret sauce" of Skype in the very beginning was P2P connections, which MSFT immediately removed.
Slack is how we bring together all of our project data -- from all of our tools -- in one place, and how we automate tasks like daily Scrum and contract creation. Slack asks us, "Hey what are you working on today? What are your blockers?" and builds an automated list. We can ask Slack to do work for us, like, "Slack, create an MSA from our template and send it Joe at Clientcorp." A million other uses. Slack is great and saving SO much time.
Skype sits unused and spams me every month asking me to put in more quarters for some bizarre concept of "long-distance" phone calls. And honestly the UX is so horrible, it's going to take a total re-launch to make it something I'd even consider installing again.
I guess the 'gamer' branding hurts it's potential use in the workplace.
Slack is a lot more featureful though and you can do cool integrations.
Discord has no search ability.
Discord is also conspicuously free and I think everyone's waiting to see if they implode or not.
I love Discord.
Yet. It's in our pipeline.
It was actually a pretty easy and great way to share links and discuss things. We even toyed with some ideas around a link grabber for alle the stuff we shared there. We only moved to Slack because of better support for link sharing and some other things.
If Microsoft can't figure out how to turn Skype into a Slack competitor they are more than welcome to contact me. I have plenty of ideas on how to to do that :)
It does not make sense for Microsoft to buy slack. Microsoft already has the sales muscle to reach millions. What Microsoft does not have is a product that can compete with Slack. They should build it ASAP as part of their Office suite. Skype is not that solution.
It takes several minutes to get things connected and working -- especially the first time, when you have to install something (not sure if it's the full skype client?) to even view the meeting. Screen sharing has some really stupid flaws, like not being able to go full screen on the client-side. Phone integration usually works, once you find the right number in a list of several dozen phone numbers (not sure if this is Skype or the business using it), though it shows you in the meeting as a separate "unknown" user (even if you've also joined via PC).
Now that we are no longer using HipChat, the buggiest application I use on a regular basis is Skype.
Basically it became I tool I maintained instead of a tool that made my life easier.
Plus we used Slack and moved aggressively back to HipChat. I thought it was fine but there's no real difference between Slack and Hipchat.
Slack on the other side just works everywhere i could ever need it, including a lot of automation tasks.
How could skype even get popular with the crappy API they offer?
That's Microsoft's issue with Skype: they fail to realize that the marketplace determines what a product is.*
If you took a well-known, purpose-built apartment building and converted it in to offices, you know what people would say? "Why would I set up my office in an apartment building?"
Regardless of how good they could make Skype, it's always going to be Skype: the cool thing you use to talk to your brother who's living in Costa Rica for the year.
— *That being said, if you've done your due diligence and really understand your audience, you can do a better job at creating a product that directs the attention of the user toward the thing you'd prefer.
Anyone tried running Skype for windows on wine?
We're in the process of moving away from Skype, which we used for 10 years in the company, to Slack. Partners went away from Skype to Flowdock and Hipchat.
Instead of buying Slack, Microsoft should invest to make Skype great again. Yet I'm not sure if this is still possible after they broke all features Skype excelled at. Or use the money to found a new competitor. But please don't buy Slack. This can only fail.
Anyone who cares about their product knows a sale to MS is a death knell for innovation. Becoming a hit like Slack is such a rare opportunity. I mean, why are you in this business if not for a chance to build a transformative platform? Which is what Slack has right now, a chance.
