Google Chat: Why Teams Still Use Slack

Google Workspace includes Google Chat. It's part of the bundle. No additional cost. Integrated with Gmail, Drive, and Meet.

So why do Workspace customers keep paying for Slack?

The answer reveals what actually matters in team communication tools—and why "free with the bundle" doesn't win when quality falls short.

The Google Chat Reality

What Chat Offers

Google Chat provides:

Basic messaging: Direct messages and group conversations
Spaces: Organized conversation threads
Gmail integration: Chat visible in Gmail sidebar
Google Meet: Video calls from chat
File sharing: Drive integration for attachments

On paper, it covers the basics. In practice, teams find it insufficient.

Where Chat Falls Short

Teams consistently cite these gaps:

Search limitations: Finding past conversations is frustrating. Slack's search is legendary. Chat's search feels like an afterthought.

Thread handling: Conversations become confusing. Threading exists but feels awkward compared to competitors.

App ecosystem: Slack offers 2,400+ integrations. Chat's ecosystem is sparse by comparison.

Customization: Workflows, automation, and customization options lag far behind.

UX polish: The interface feels less refined, less focused, less purposeful.

According to enterprise user feedback, Google Chat adoption in companies with existing Slack usage remains low even when included in Workspace subscriptions.

The "Good Enough" Trap

Google's approach to Chat exemplifies a pattern:

Include feature in bundle
Make it work at basic level
Assume bundle inclusion drives adoption
Don't invest in making it excellent

This works for commoditized features. It fails for tools where quality directly impacts daily work.

Why Teams Pay Extra for Communication

Communication Is Core Infrastructure

Chat isn't a nice-to-have. For distributed teams, it's primary infrastructure:

Decisions made in threads: Important context lives in chat
Culture built in channels: Team connection through daily interaction
Speed enabled by search: Finding information fast matters
Workflows automated: Integrations reduce manual work

Sub-par chat infrastructure affects everything that flows through it.

The Search Quality Gap

Consider the daily impact of search quality:

With excellent search: "Where did we discuss the API approach?" → Found in 10 seconds With poor search: Multiple failed searches → Ask colleague → Wait for response → Maybe find it

Multiply by dozens of searches daily. Poor search compounds into hours of lost time weekly.

The Integration Gap

Modern work involves many tools. Chat integrations enable:

Notifications: Alert channels automatically from other systems
Actions: Take action on other systems from chat
Context: Pull information from other systems into conversations
Automation: Workflows triggered by chat activity

Slack's 2,400+ integrations create an ecosystem. Chat's limited integrations create walls.

The Threading Gap

Threading affects communication quality:

Good threading: Conversations stay organized, context preserved, easy to follow later Poor threading: Conversations fragment, context lost, confusion compounds

Teams using Chat often find themselves confused about which conversation relates to which topic. This isn't a minor annoyance—it's organizational friction applied to every discussion.

The Hidden Cost of "Free"

Opportunity Cost

When teams use a subpar tool:

Discussions take longer than necessary
Information gets lost more often
Integration gaps require manual bridging
Daily friction accumulates

The cost isn't visible on an invoice, but it's real.

Productivity Differential

Research from Slack's work analytics suggests teams using optimized communication tools:

Make decisions 25% faster
Spend less time searching for information
Report higher satisfaction with collaboration

These differentials compound across teams and time.

The Switching Cost Calculation

Teams evaluating Slack vs. Chat inclusion do math:

Slack cost: $7-15 per user per month Chat cost: $0 (included in Workspace) Savings: $84-180 per user per year

Slack value:

Better search (hours saved per user monthly)
Better integrations (workflow automation value)
Better threads (communication clarity value)
Better ecosystem (reduced tool friction)

For most teams doing the calculation honestly, the value far exceeds the cost.

What Google Would Need to Change

Search Parity

To compete with Slack, Chat would need:

Search that finds messages reliably
Filters that narrow results effectively
Search that includes file content
Results that include thread context

This isn't impossible—Google invented modern search. They just haven't applied that capability to Chat.

Integration Ecosystem

Building a competitive ecosystem requires:

Robust API for developers
Marketplace for discovery
Partnership development
Enterprise integration focus

This is a multi-year investment Google hasn't prioritized.

UX Investment

Making Chat feel as polished as Slack requires:

User research with heavy chat users
Interface refinement for clarity
Threading model improvement
Mobile experience optimization

Again, achievable—but requiring focus Google hasn't applied.

Strategic Commitment

The real gap is strategic:

Slack exists as a communication company. Everything depends on chat quality. Google offers Chat as a bundle feature. Many things compete for attention.

This commitment differential shows in product quality.

Making the Communication Decision

When Chat Is Sufficient

Chat works for organizations with:

Light communication needs
Few integration requirements
Simple collaboration patterns
Strong commitment to all-Google ecosystem

If your team's chat usage is occasional and straightforward, Chat's limitations may not matter.

When Slack Justifies Cost

Slack justifies its cost when:

Chat is core infrastructure
Search quality matters daily
Integrations enable workflows
Team scales require organization

For most knowledge work teams, these conditions apply.

The Hybrid Option

Some organizations use both:

Chat for casual Google Workspace integration
Slack for core team communication

This adds context switching cost but may fit specific needs.

The Broader Pattern

Bundle Features vs. Best-of-Breed

Google Chat exemplifies a common pattern:

Bundled features: Good enough, included free, drive adoption through convenience Best-of-breed tools: Excellent at one thing, worth paying for quality

For commoditized features, bundles win. For core infrastructure, quality wins.

Communication Is Not Commoditized

Email might be commoditized—one email client is much like another.

Real-time team communication isn't commoditized:

Quality differences directly affect daily work
Search and threading matter enormously
Ecosystem effects create compounding value

Chat is infrastructure, not utility. Infrastructure quality matters.

Experience Unified Communication with Waymaker

Want to see what happens when communication connects to work context? Waymaker Commander integrates communication with projects, goals, and organizational knowledge—giving conversation the context it needs.

Communication that understands your work. Context that travels with conversation.

Free isn't valuable if it's frustrating. Quality is worth paying for when it's daily infrastructure. Teams that default to included-but-limited tools pay in friction what they save in license fees. The calculation favors quality for core communication. Learn more about communication tool costs and explore Microsoft 365 fatigue patterns.

This analysis draws from user research across organizations that have evaluated and often rejected Google Chat despite its zero incremental cost.