[ryanbrunner]

I really think one of the things that Flowdock nailed was their threading implementation - it took a little bit of getting used to, but not much, and allowed contextual conversation without feeling like the conversation was buried in a thread somewhere (as this implementation does). For people interested in the thread, you could focus on just that, but for everyone else, it just acted like a normal chat room.

Considering how long Slack has been promising threading, this seems really half baked and poorly thought out.

[maknz]

Flowdock was great until CA bought it. Now it's pretty much on life support. No support (it's all 'community' now, whatever that means), buggy as heck, no updates in years, the Twitter account is dead.

[brazzledazzle]

CA makes me wonder if they have a strategy in mind for acquisitions or if the plan is to put them on life support collecting fees from customers too invested to switch.

[rasjani]

Came to mention Flowdock and ask for comparison. On busy channels 'flows' where really good feature. Too bad the product is not that known.

[arjie]

FlowDock's threading is vastly superior, in my opinion. Everyone can see progress along threads, and conversations can stay separate.

[graphememes]

Yep, flowdocks implementation of this feature blows the slack variant out of the water and into space. I seriously wish companies would go back to flowdock.

[truebosko]

Never heard of Flowdock but it sounds very compelling. We're currently looking to get our enterprise on Slack and the costs seem .. unreasonable, and I feel that's because Slack is the top player in the game and can ask for such pricing.

Hmm.

[ryanbrunner]

Don't choose Flowdock. It was an amazing tool, but since they were acquired, development has completely halted and it's unfortunately stagnating.

I still think it beats Slack in many ways, but it doesn't appear to have much of a future.