4 ms·
I really wish they would extend per user licensing to their on premise version as well. It's completely stupid that if you are one user over the limit, you hav
by kogepathic 9y ago
I really wish they would extend per user licensing to their on premise version as well.
It's completely stupid that if you are one user over the limit, you have to pay for the next block of licenses. It's a huge cost increase for one more user.
- shermozle 9y agoThe attitude is pretty simple: if the company is stupid enough to insist on self-hosting, they can afford stupid prices. Support on-premise is expensive.
- qaq 9y agoSure all those smart people who were hosed when AWS East was having issues and their whole development and deployment pipelines got hosed because of all the SaaS services that went down.
- svanwaa 9y agoSome industries (financial for example) have to meet regulatory/audit requirements that don't allow for cloud hosting.
- kejaed 9y agoAerospace and defence too.
- solatic 9y agoAtlassian doesn't sell Cloud licenses for instances beyond 2,000 users. At that point, you need to dial up your own "on-premise" Data Center version yourself on AWS in order to scale further - not to mention federated use cases, which Atlassian themselves employ, e.g. a public-facing instance for tracking suggestions and public bug reports, and an internal instance for development itself. Atlassian Cloud hosting is for small players.