←back to thread

1806 points JustSkyfall | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
jppope ◴[] No.45284412[source]
I totally feel for your group in this situation, and more than anything I think the timeline is pretty rough.

To address the rest of the comments in the thread though... most pricing structures are to incentivize growth or to maximize profit. In the days of Bill Macaitis Slack was a growth company, and they were trying to build as much good will as possible, because good will is good for growth (especially to reduce cost on marketing). Salesforce doesn't care about good will or growth at this point, because the market penetration phase is basically over. Retaining good will over maximizing profit at this stage won't help them with what they are trying to do, and they aren't that kind of company anyway. Its not like Patagonia bought slack or something.

The lesson, if there is one, is that as a consumer to keep the companies honest we need more competition (and no I'm not talking about Microsoft teams). However this is exactly the opposite of what investors want. Think about that when you decide to buy a product from a well funded VC backed startup. Being cheap and moving fast aren't the end state.

replies(1): >>45286256 #
1. komali2 ◴[] No.45286256[source]
Cory Doctorow has called this "enshittification" and it seems to be a universal process across the tech industry.