When you host Jira yourself, the monthly subscription pays for Software + Software updates. When Atlassian hosts it for you, you're paying for Software + Software Updates + Service (hosting). When you hosted yourself, a team gets blasted for not monitoring it or updating it correctly. When Atlassian fails to do it (and charges for it) then they get the heat.

All that to say, I don't think it's a weird phenomenon, it's just you're realizing that you're paying someone else for something that's not delivered on.

People are more forgiving torwards themselves and their own folks, I can understand that. I'm just thinking it's important to make decisions based on facts. Some self-hosters walk around with this "my own basement is safer than Amazon datacenters" attitude and that's just not true (in most cases, I guess :D).

No. The basic assumption is only, that if I pay somebody money for the service and to keep things running, then sudden data loss is unacceptable (and a multi week downtime even more so).

Some companies cannot operate effectively without atlassian products, so a fuckup of that scale might just have legal consequences depending on whom it hits.

> Some companies cannot operate effectively without atlassian products

Kind of their problem to be frank.

> so a fuckup of that scale might just have legal consequences depending on whom it hits.

Any contract those companies signed would have a cap on the retributions by Atlassian for trashing SLA targets

In my years of selfhosting personal stuff I never had a service “sunset“, never lost data, and never had significant downtime.

In the external services I use, downtime of one service or other is to be expected at least a few times a year, and the “sunsets” happen occasionally.

Thing is, public services are solving a much more difficult problem (keeping things running safely for millions).