This couldn't be further from the truth. We have well over 10,000 active users. If our service is down, they care. However, finding time to build something this robust would take a significant amount of resources away from our product.

It's a matter of priorities. I can spend the time to build and maintain a tool like this or I could spend that time improving our service for our customers. Paying someone else to manage this for us is a complete no-brainer regardless of the size of our customer base.

I disagree, it's about core competency. I have the resources to build and host a number of things. But I pay for quite a bit of software. Things like bug tracking, ticketing, billing, etc. - all because I want to focus on what I do best and let some one else handle the details of this stuff.

This kind of comment is a gross simplification of a market, and just shows that you haven't really thought about it much at all.

-1

But it adds operational overhead, as now you need to set up a second hosting provider, manage another environment, etc. An internally-hosted status page isn't very useful when your datacenter goes down.

This is the perfect thing to pay someone else to run for you. I'd gladly pay $50/mo for it.

Agreed. It's the perfect thing to pay someone else to run for you. Someone who's very focused on making this service great.