They just announced GA of agentic assignees. It suggests a year or more of maturation. Rovo Dev has already been a thing. The Java products are almost EOL. They have already been assigning JAC tickets to Rovo and $TEAM is down. What else should be done with the surplus headcount?
Are you making the argument that Atlassian’s products are basically done, no more development needed?
The Java ones have been done since version 6 or so. We’re up to what, 11?
I see. So AI is reducing the number of jobs in the tech sector because fewer people are needed to ship stuff (thanks to AI). And since fewer people are needed across the tech sector then we don't need things like Jira anymore because it can all be done on post-its or Google sheets or something, so there's no need for Atlassian accounts anymore. And Atlassian can now do more with less thanks to AI. I can't wait for At…
Glad you mentioned Google Sheets. I moved my personal task tracking from Trello to Notion to Sheets. Sheets has been the best for me. Infinite customizability, fast, lean.
I see. So AI is reducing the number of jobs in the tech sector because fewer people are needed to ship stuff (thanks to AI). And since fewer people are needed across the tech sector then we don't need things like Jira anymore because it can all be done on post-its or Google sheets or something, so there's no need for Atlassian accounts anymore. And Atlassian can now do more with less thanks to AI. I can't wait for At…
In many cases, sticky notes are more productive.
And really hard to coordinate with remote teams. I say this as a lover of sticky notes.
They just announced GA of agentic assignees. It suggests a year or more of maturation. Rovo Dev has already been a thing. The Java products are almost EOL. They have already been assigning JAC tickets to Rovo and $TEAM is down. What else should be done with the surplus headcount?
My point exactly. This implies atlassian is not a healthy growing business, but a stagnant or even shrinking one. Layoffs have little to do with AI, and more akin to fuel being jettisoned to stay in the air longer.
Prioritization and workforce realignment. Old hat.
Replacing headcount with technology? Also old hat.
If the cuts ate into the good parts of the business, I will worry. I doubt that happened.
They just announced GA of agentic assignees. It suggests a year or more of maturation. Rovo Dev has already been a thing. The Java products are almost EOL. They have already been assigning JAC tickets to Rovo and $TEAM is down. What else should be done with the surplus headcount?
My point exactly. This implies atlassian is not a healthy growing business, but a stagnant or even shrinking one. Layoffs have little to do with AI, and more akin to fuel being jettisoned to stay in the air longer.
Must a business grow to be healthy? What about stability and longevity?
Layoffs because of AI make no sense to me. Imagine you own a company that is paid to deliver packages. You use horses and differentiate by delivering quicker than everyone else. Then cars are invented and everyone starts delivering packages faster. In what world does a healthy growing business react to this by laying off couriers "in a pivot to automotive transportation". Would a healthy business not switch everyone…
> Layoffs because of AI make no sense to me.
That's because these layoffs aren't about AI. They're about firms that overhired and Wall St is (finally) having a sobering moment of their (profit) growth potential.
Layoffs because of AI make no sense to me. Imagine you own a company that is paid to deliver packages. You use horses and differentiate by delivering quicker than everyone else. Then cars are invented and everyone starts delivering packages faster. In what world does a healthy growing business react to this by laying off couriers "in a pivot to automotive transportation". Would a healthy business not switch everyone…
It’s not that they believe AI tools are replacing workers, it’s using the new free cash flow allows them to invest in AI. They are betting that their AI business will be profitable, and need to cut costs to invest in it.
> They are betting that their AI business will be profitable, and need to cut costs to invest in it.
I think AI is a wonderful excuse for many. You can now lay off as many people as you want without standing out in a negative way. "Everyone is doing it" and "everyone knows why it's happening".
Please 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…
> Instead of firing 1600 people, why not have all of them use AI to produce more stuff and outrun their competitors. Alternative take: I can't speak for BitBucket because I've never used it, but I've had enough time with JIRA and Confluence to last a lifetime, and these products are so bad - so clunky, so slow, so much friction in the UI - that I can't really see what useful value adding work Atlassian's 16,000 emplo…
I last used Bitbucket in 2021-ish. It was fine for what it was, especially on-premise, but it's a very hard sell in a world where GitLab and webhooks exist and even harder now that Gitea is finally picking up steam.