Slack is merely the latest contender in a very long succession of group chat technologies. They will be usurped one day, but they are substantially accelerating their demise by making their product so infuriatingly slow.

> assuming that you know the market better than the market leader.

I never made that claim.

> They're killing it for a reason

Sure, but who knows what that reason really is. I've gone through numerous cycles of "best chat app ever", and they're pretty much all in the dustbin now. I just don't see anything about Slack that makes it any better than several alternatives other than the number of users. In fact it's objectively worse than alternatives in several ways. The video and regular calling for example is pretty terrible on anything less than a high speed internet connection. In general the app often fails to load on weak WIFI. I can still use Skype, Discord, Gittr, Facebook Messenger, Signal, et.al. on coffeeshop wifi, but not Slack. You don't need to be a genius to see that this is a problem.

The status quo justifies the status quo, said every market leader ever.

Well yeah, of course it's just my opinion. I think my experience with Slack is pretty different, as I use it in my 9-5, and we often have to find work arounds for places where it's just plain broken. Specifically, the screen sharing and video calls often just don't work.

My criticism isn't just about RAM use. Slack is plain unusable on weak WIFI or slow connections. It also tolerates interruptions in connectivity very poorly. Video calling is more often than not terrible, and it has about the worst screen sharing experience I'm aware of at the moment.

If I were starting a new company, I wouldn't use Slack again.