The Druuge Mauler chugs on.
Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
21–30 of 320 posts
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#22Please don't tell me that Jira is about to get even worse... I don't understand the AI layoffs; there's always an infinite supply of new work that could be done. Instead of firing 1600 people, why not have all of them use AI to produce more stuff and outrun their competitors. Presumably all their competitors also know about Claude as well, and a lot of these 1600 people will go work for them and use Claude. Unless th…
I think with fewer people working on it, the rate at which it gets worse will now decline!
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#23Where are the most popular alternatives to Jira?
What do you need out of Jira? Most any firm I’ve worked for could replace it with Trello or any Kanban style tool in a heartbeat.
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#24What does the "incur $230 million in charges" mean? Why would it cost them money to lay people off and have less office space? Possibly a bad LLM edit; maybe they meant to say would save $230 million through reduced headcount and less office space?
possibly the spending required to do all the severances
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#25Does Atlassian still have the tech debt that lead to extended outages? https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/scoop-atlassian
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#26Please don't tell me that Jira is about to get even worse... I don't understand the AI layoffs; there's always an infinite supply of new work that could be done. Instead of firing 1600 people, why not have all of them use AI to produce more stuff and outrun their competitors. Presumably all their competitors also know about Claude as well, and a lot of these 1600 people will go work for them and use Claude. Unless th…
It is just regular layoffs, and doing so admits they don't know what to do with the 1,600 people anyway, and probably didn't know what to do with them for years. AI isn't going to help, but it bandaids over the issue so the investors aren't spooked.
That's kind of what I was getting at.
Laying thousands of people off often implies you hired thousands of more people than you actually needed, which makes investors feel like you're wasting their money. If you say "no they're all being replaced for $200/month of Claude Code!" then it makes you look like there was actually strategy to this.
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#27What does the "incur $230 million in charges" mean? Why would it cost them money to lay people off and have less office space? Possibly a bad LLM edit; maybe they meant to say would save $230 million through reduced headcount and less office space?
It's the severance cost, mostly.
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#28Where are the most popular alternatives to Jira?
Linear
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#29What does the "incur $230 million in charges" mean? Why would it cost them money to lay people off and have less office space? Possibly a bad LLM edit; maybe they meant to say would save $230 million through reduced headcount and less office space?
[deleted]
Re: Atlassian to cut roughly 1,600 jobs in pivot to AI
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's likely not all this, but i expect an element is: there is a meaningful number of people essentially refusing to work with AI. Antidotal but I have spoken to friends at Google who are telling me many co-workers say "I tried it didn't work, ill do it myself" when really they just didn't try very hard at all.
That would be a stupid reason to fire someone when the jury is still out on the net productivity benefits of using AI to code at scale.
Sure, but would that really surprise you?
Edit: that is to say, if you had a % of your workforce avoiding helping you explore a current trend (valuable or not tbd sure), I can see rational arguments around removing them from the team.