[scaryclam]

Generally yes, given the reasons others have said. Other than that, at the very least, outages can be dealt with more proactively when you have your own setup. Third parties won't have the same priorities that your company does.

[seanp2k2]

Since Slack's main business is chat, they have a pretty good incentive to get everything working again ASAP. Here's their SLA for "plus plan" and Enterprise plan:

  Our Plus plan Service Level Agreement (SLA) guarantees a 99.99% monthly uptime1
  We’ve designed our SLA to be simple and transparent — based directly on the information we make publicly available on 
  Slack’s System Status page.
  If we fall short of our 99.99% uptime guarantee, we’ll refund customers on the Plus plan 100 times the amount your 
  workspace paid during the period Slack was down.

Source: https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/204113126-Plus-plan... + https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/115003205446-Plans-...

Chat is a commodity these days. For most businesses, it probably makes more sense to just let the companies in the business of offering paid chat services do their thing.

[user15672]

Don't see why you were voted down on this, since it's true. Slack working to get things running again doesn't mean they're prioritising your companies particular instance or region. They're likely to be making sure their own region and their own stuff is up and fixed first, so anyone away from the east coast of America is likely to get seen to after that. It would be stupid to do it any other way, since slack employees are likely affected as well and they're the ones trying to fix it. Down voting someone pointing that out is pretty fanboi-esk or really naieve.

Pretty much, if you don't own the service, you don't get to decide where in the queue you are for a fix.