Live data from Hacker News

Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

smartcompany.com.au

131–140 of 515 posts

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#131
Jira Data Center is an unbelievably powerful tool.

It suffers from unknowledgable administrators.

If you have a person who is running Jira Data Center that is familiar with its internal classes, API, Scriptrunner, Automation for Jira, and the enormous 3rd party plug-in environment, there is simply no comparison. It’s not even close.

To be fair, that’s a pretty big ask, in terms of technical know-how and cost. Even just base Jira is quite complicated to configure well.

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#132
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thought of running a 10,000+ development team using Basecamp is hilarious in its insanity. Because that is where Jira primarily plays. In enterprise companies where it's rolled out across the organisation with tentacles firmly embedded into almost every process and system. And whilst people continue to criticise Jira it continues to grow because in reality it competes with products like Rally not Asana. And there…

That should be the usual environment for Jira. However the only company I saw using it was a two people company with less than a dozen of consultants. That was in the early '10s. I was definitely not impressed by the UX, inconsistent, slow, apparently designed to make it hard to learn. Other companies I worked with later on (no more than a couple of dozen of people) use Kanbanize, Asana, TeamCity + YouTrack and yes,…

Every bank I have worked on in any capacity has had Jira in some form. So perhaps it's a little more industry specific than one might think.

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#134
Somehow I'm not surprised.

A few days ago[0] I was writing a Jira ticket after hitting the "Create" button and I wrote the description (the body of the ticket) for ~30 minutes. I switched the ticket type from A to B (no epics involved) and it wiped out the entire description. All I did was select a different item in a select drop down box provided by the form's UI.

There was no warning it would clear the description and no draft saved. I lost 30 minutes of work.

I normally manually copy textareas every few minutes on any Atlassian page because I don't trust their site (to be fair I do this for most sites too) but in the above case I had just copied a link reference which overwrote my clipboard. At the time I also didn't have a multi-clipboard tool installed since it was using a company issued machine that I don't have tricked out yet.

[0]: https://twitter.com/nickjanetakis/status/1540353527859466246

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#135

> users can switch to a competitor product like Asana, Basecamp or Monday.com with minimal cost That's just plain nonsense. I dislike using Jira as much as anyone, mainly because it's so excruciatingly slow. But there is no competing product (suite) that offers comparable functionality and provides the same long-term flexibilty. Many companies have built entire workflows (not just development related) around Jira, an…

I worked for a large department in a large bank that changed from Jira to MS Teams Scrum, as the new licence for Jira was too much. No way that it had as many features as Jira, but it worked fine, maybe was simpler. So it ain't nonsense, users do switch.

Intered to know more about "MS Teams Scrum", got a link or something?

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#136

> revenue for the past nine months grew from US$1.5 billion to US$2.04 billion ($2.95 billion) (or around 24%). Forgive my math skills at 4:07 in the morning, but isn't that actually 36% growth? > Atlassian’s legacy Jira product ... is no longer loved by developers. As a developer I prefer Jira over every alternative I've tried (Clubhouse, Trello, GitHub Issues, and Monday.com). > users can switch to a competitor pro…

> As a developer I prefer Jira over every alternative I've tried (Clubhouse, Trello, GitHub Issues, and Monday.com).

I also prefer JIRA, but that doesn't mean I love it. It just so happens to be the only available product with most of the features I need.

That being said, its UX is beyond terrible. The moment something else appears that covers some significant portion of its feature set, I can see a lot of people making the switch.

I think one of the biggest problems of competitors is to think that JIRA is bad because it's complex. Therefore they position their offerings as a simpler slim down version of JIRA.

Big news: it is complex to manage complex projects. JIRA has, I think, the right level of complexity and flexibility to tackle that.

If any competitor reads this message: please, go complex!

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#137
post #41
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JIRA has huge feature creep lockin along the likes of sales force. It costs huge amounts of money on consultants to move off of it. Any new company probably wouldn’t use it though, it’s just overkill.

> JIRA has huge feature creep lockin along the likes of sales force. Sure Jira has lockin, but so does any tool with any features. Git has lockin, but you don't hear of people avoiding branches in case they need to move to perforce. > Any new company probably wouldn’t use it though, it’s just overkill. So what should they use instead? The thing about jira is it does the basics well, far better than any of the competi…

> Git has lockin, but you don't hear of people avoiding branches in case they need to move to perforce.

Replace Git with SVN in the comment above.

Also replace Perforce with Git in the comment above.

Then you have a viable argument and a story of mine that actually is a case of exactly that - back when project management for certain projects was done primarily in SVN, there was the expectation to stick to the popular way of laying out repositories, with folders for trunk, branches and tags, a bit like the example here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2611237/subversion-repos...

Of course, you didn't really need to do it that way and certain other projects explored other options, such as having features under the root of the repository, like "/ISSUE123" or something like that.

Well, as time passed, it became apparent that SVN just wouldn't cut it (TortoiseSVN was such nice software, though) and that the projects would need to be migrated off of SVN and into Git, to import them into GitLab/GitHub or elsewhere. Those projects all still being in development and having the need to be trace back changes to particular feature requests/issues meant that all of the revision history would also need to be moved over.

The problem with most of the migration scripts, however, was that they broke when you had a non-standard layout and as a consequence of that, you simply couldn't finish the import process and were stuck on SVN. Back then I actually resolved it by rewriting the history of those repositories into the standard format, but it was just a massive waste of time and a headache.

Alas, a sentence like this would absolutely be false:

> SVN has lockin, but you don't hear of people avoiding non-standard repo layouts in case they need to move to Git.

So yes, despite there being certain features and the ability to do something, that doesn't immediately mean that you should jump right in and use them! I might also have a few horror stories about Git submodules, or maybe even using Git LFS with synchronized Git repositories across GitHub and GitLab (of course, the LFS contents weren't sent properly, so no binary assets were mirrored), as well as other such problems.

If you can, stick to a stable, boring and predictable set of core features in any software package.

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#138

> users can switch to a competitor product like Asana, Basecamp or Monday.com with minimal cost That's just plain nonsense. I dislike using Jira as much as anyone, mainly because it's so excruciatingly slow. But there is no competing product (suite) that offers comparable functionality and provides the same long-term flexibilty. Many companies have built entire workflows (not just development related) around Jira, an…

> But there is no competing product (suite) that offers comparable functionality. Many companies have built entire workflows (not just development related) around Jira, and have huge knowledge bases in Confluence. Switching would come with a lot of effort.

Exactly. Other products comes with opinionated workflow or are much easier (and simpler) to use. Once you setup Jira way you wanted (good luck with that) and able to maintain this setup for all of your projects you're stuck with Jira forever - you won't be able to export all of your content to another software. The whole process takes ages and its a nightmare of going thought totally different UX pages, unintuitive settings, slow UI, setting up extremely expensive plugins (why till today you need to buy tempo to get basic functionality like time tracking) etc.

It's called vendor lock. Nobody ever got fired for buying Jira

Other products are not for every business, have limited settings - but are quicker, saves you time and are able to be useful since day one.

All of the companies are using Jira differently, even if you're familiar with this, and you have been using Jira in all you provious jobs for years you still need to have onboarding on how does Jira works in current company - as for instance I've worked with Asana in 3 totally different companies and workflow was the same.

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#139
post #64
post #6

> While it is still used by many tech businesses (including the author’s), it has no real network effect — that is, users can switch to a competitor product like Asana, Basecamp or Monday.com with minimal cost (other than the initial hassle of switching to a new system). Lol. At some companies, Jira workflows literally run the whole company. At my prev job, prod deployments were tightly linked to Jira.

While it is true that Jira is "sticky", the statement was that it did not have a network effect. MS Word, Facebook, WhatsApp, Visa, they all have network effects: every user you add makes your product more compelling, thus creating a virtuous circle. You need to buy their product because other people have their product.

JIRA's network effect is the amount of plugins and third party integrations that work with JIRA.

The author points at monday.com: I used it a few years ago and it only has basic and useless integrations out of the box, even for a service like Gitlab. You either develop what you need youreslf of try to so something with Zapier.

Re: Atlassian is 20 years old and unprofitable

#140

> users can switch to a competitor product like Asana, Basecamp or Monday.com with minimal cost That's just plain nonsense. I dislike using Jira as much as anyone, mainly because it's so excruciatingly slow. But there is no competing product (suite) that offers comparable functionality and provides the same long-term flexibilty. Many companies have built entire workflows (not just development related) around Jira, an…

>But there is no competing product (suite) that offers comparable functionality. Many companies have built entire workflows (not just development related) around Jira, and have huge knowledge bases in Confluence. Switching would come with a lot of effort.

Most companies don't need "comparable functionality" and most did not built entire workflows around it, and those companies will leave for competitors. The few that locked themselves into Jira will face sharply rising prices in next years, that will make them reconsider their choice.

They have bad products and they are losing 700 million a year, future for Atlassian is bleak.

Post reply on HN