4 ms·
Seems to me Atlassian "won" because they had a actual sales team not because of "technology".
by mariusmg 11y ago
Seems to me Atlassian "won" because they had a actual sales team not because of "technology".
- SandersAK 11y agoPeople really seem to downplay this, but Atlassian's partner network of integrators and consultants is actually really powerful.
- anthonys 11y agoAtlassian make a big point of saying they don't have a sales team[1] so I am not sure where this is coming from? [1] https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/purchase-licensing https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/purchase-licensing
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y agoFrom sour grapes?
- brazzledazzle 11y agoTheir sales team is their partner network. VARs.
- thedufer 11y agoAtlassian could just as well title all of their engineers as "developers" and claim not to have an engineering team; the claim they're making is only true in a very narrow and ultimately meaningless sense. They pay people to convince other companies to buy their product. The claim of "no sales people" stems from the fact that they only talk to people who contact them, rather than cold-calling. This is, interestingly, also what the sales team at my company does. They are pretty sure they're doing sales, though, so we call them that.
- omouse 11y agoThey won because they allow managers to be in control and authoritarians. I've seen more than 2 managers who take over JIRA and lock down permissions and create custom workflows and all of them insist on having swim lanes and 5+ columns. So to move one little ticket across the board took 4+ drags. If you have a heavy-weight process where people are actually signing off on things, then yes it makes sense. But otherwise it just irritates everyone. They won because they appealed to the true buyer in the office; the CTO or VP of engineering, but they really appeal to the control-freak and micro-manager. When I used Fogbugz in one office, it was the devs that pushed for its use and the project managers and other execs weren't able to screw it up; there was no obvious way of creating custom workflows or locking things down too much. Fogbugz let us get work done. JIRA in the hands of a micromanager makes me want to chew glass.
- djur 11y agoThis was my experience, with Redmine instead of Fogbugz.
- UK-AL 11y agoI think having the process explicty shown visually is better than just a "In progress" column. That way everyone knows where every other task is. In progress could mean anything from writing specs, ui design, dev or testing
- flarg 11y agoI had the same experience - pushing a client to use FogBugz because I knew it was not over-configurable so there wasn't much chance of the management screwing it up. I also found the estimation functionality quite wonderful. Worked well.
- vailripper 11y agoWe were on Fogbugz for many years, but eventually left to Jira because the Agile workflow is absolutely horrid. Micromanagers can screw anything up - you can invent some pretty insane workflows using the FogBugz workflow tool, if you want to :)
- keypusher 11y agoIf management is that messed up, it really doesn't matter what bug tracker you use. Jira is more flexible, and threfore your bad managers can bend it to their will more easily. The solution to the problem is to find new managers.
- draw_down 11y agoWell, reading this it's pretty painfully obvious that Atlasssian knew how to market a product better than Fog Creek, at least at the time. So sure, I'd agree the outcome was probably mostly not due to technology, but marketing is important. (I mean marketing in the old-school sense of knowing the market you're selling in, in addition to advertising and publicity)
- camkego 11y agoDoesn't Atlassian claim not have a sales team?