Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Sign up Log in

It's not the same without you

Join the community to find out what other Atlassian users are discussing, debating and creating.

Atlassian Community Hero Image Collage

To all Atlassian server champions - we want to hear from you

If you haven’t already read our recent announcement “Accelerating our journey to the cloud, together” and reviewed the related information that we added to our website, please start there as both resources provide important context for this post.

Now that we’re all on the same page, let’s talk about it - our plan to stop selling and eventually stop supporting server is a big shift. Especially for our server champions like you.

I wanted to write this note to acknowledge all that you do for your Atlassian users, and to be upfront that we know this announcement is disruptive and may cause uncertainty in the near-term. I also know these changes are the right ones to set our customers up for decades of future success, and I’ll do everything I can to make sure you have a clear path forward alongside us on this journey to the cloud.

Server champions, you know who you are. You’re the one who has used our server products for years, in many cases a decade or longer. You’re the person who introduced our server products into your current organization and perhaps this isn’t the first organization you brought Atlassian into. If Atlassian products were already in use when you got there, you’re the one who took over and drove the adoption and success of our products to a new level. You’re an expert on our server products, bending them to the will of your stakeholders. You’re the one people come to when there is a challenge they need to solve with Atlassian products. Heck, you may even have Atlassian in your title.

Atlassian wouldn’t be where it is today without you, and you’re an important part of our future.

Which is why we are creating the server champion community group.

We’d like to invite you to become part of a private server champions community group. As a group member, you’ll be part of shaping the future of our cloud offerings. We plan to connect group members with Atlassian Product Managers working on the requirements across each of the areas you care most about (e.g. security, change management). Our Product Managers will first and foremost listen in order to understand your needs, and they will also present our progress to date, and solicit feedback on future plans and roadmaps.

While we’re confident that Atlassian cloud is ready for the majority of our customers today, we know there is still more we need to continue to learn from server champions like you. We want to partner with you to ensure we deeply understand your requirements so that you can confidently say that cloud is a great choice for your organization. We want to enable you to deliver the same great experience to your users that they have come to rely on.

How to join the server champion community group

To join our server champion community group, please fill out this form and tell us about the important needs of your organization, as well as the experience your users have come to rely on you for. This form will be open until May 1, 2021.

And of course, it wouldn’t be an Atlassian Community program without some custom swag to show our appreciation for your involvement.

Want to ask a question now? If you’ve got questions that aren’t addressed by the information we added to our website, drop them in the comments below. We’ll be monitoring this post actively and the Atlassian team is here to support you.

A final note…

I want to wrap this up by saying thank you. Thank you for your partnership. Thank you for helping to make Atlassian the company it is today. During my time as Head of the Server business at Atlassian, I spoke with many of you personally. I know the passion and pride you have for the work you do, and I sure hope in those meetings it came across clearly how much respect I have for you and the role you play.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to show you we can continue to be great partners as we journey to the cloud, together.

49 answers


I think I'm speaking for a lot of other partners in the Atlassian ecosystem.

The decision to eventually discontinue the Server products is a massive deal. We have business mainly with small-medium companies who can't simply afford to move to Data Center. As we work with regulated industries like Medical Device manufacturers, going to Cloud is simply not an option.

You may boost Cloud as much as you want, but it's missing a ton of key features that will make it non viable for regulated industries. Apps for Cloud are limited in their features, due to the structure itself of Cloud, that prevents developers do have the same solutions as in Server. And, due to the very nature of Cloud, the continuous update of the instance, regulated industries will not be able to use it. They need a more static solution.

Maybe it is part of the Atlassian strategy to drop the small fish in favor of the large ones, but I expect many companies to move away from Atlassian, and a number of partners to cease business. Consider anyway that many of these small companies expand significantly in 1-2 years, making them potential customers for Data Center, but if you add these entry barriers in the first place, then they will choose a different platform.

I would ask you to consider at least to create lower tiers for Data Center. If the purpose is to ensure customers renew their licenses, I'm ok with it, but we need to provide Server-like solutions for the regulated industry, for small-medium companies.





I second this statement. There a a lot of mid size companies that CANNOT move to the cloud. Our Notified Body will never accept something mission critical as documentation / project management to be hosted in the cloud. DC isn’t suitable for smaller / midsize businesses due to high costs vs benefit. 

Like # people like this

Thank you Erick and Matteo. First, the goal here is not to lose our focus on small and mid-sized customers. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our 150,000 cloud customers are small and mid-sized businesses. 

As far as cloud viability is concerned, you mention three specific areas, compliance due to being a medical device company, extensibility for developers, and continuous updates that enterprise customers can't accept. In all of these areas we are making tons of progress. From a compliance perspective, are there specific regulations that we should be aware of for your specific organization or is it simply internal policies that all data must be managed in house? With extensibility, we continue to focus on Atlassian Connect and Forge. We already have the majority of our most popular server apps available in cloud (and we know they don't have 100% parity) but we believe that we can accommodate many of the key use cases customers are looking for. Lastly, with continuous deployments, we are working on the ability for customers to choose when new features are deployed. You can track all of this here:

Lastly, on your request for lower Data Center tiers, we hear you loud and clear. At this time the entry point for Data Center is the 500 user license and we have no plans to add lower tiers. However, we will continue to capture feedback from our customers and partners in this area. 


Atlassian could solve this dilemma (and truly provide some love for the small businesses that use JSD and Confluence Server) -- by creating an entry level pricing scheme for Data Center.

Don't force us to go to Cloud!  It's not at all the same product as Server.

Like # people like this

Hello @Cameron Deatsch ,

In the Medical Device industry there are a number of regulations and standards we need to comply with. The issue is with them, not internal policies. Ref ISO 13485 and 21 CFR 11, just to start. (FYI We are not a user, we are an integrator of Apps to create solutions for the MedTech industry on Atlassian products.)

I'll try to summarize the problems:

1. Apps that are used for complying to these regulations for a Document Management System are either not available on Cloud or the developers are struggling to put something together even vaguely similar, on Cloud. We spoke to them and they said it's due to the additional complexity and limitations that Cloud has vs Server.

2. One of the key requirements for the MedTech industry (and I guess many others) is that you have to show you are in control of your system. With Cloud, well, you are not. Cloud is dynamic. Too dynamic. Updates happen daily. Updates are pushed without notice. Updates sometimes break Apps. This is a massive no-no. Unless you will create a Cloud version of Confluence (and other products) with WAY less frequent updates (and here I mean once every few months at worst!) Cloud will never be an option. Also, you will have to let the developers know in advance so they can ensure their Apps still work with the new version. So, sort of like Server...

I can go on forever here, but if you want to have more details we can arrange a chat with you.



Like # people like this

Hi @Cameron Deatsch

I second what @Matteo Gubellini _SoftComply_  is stating here.

I'm in MedTech and it is not that we do not want to move to cloud services, but its practically impossible to do so (outside simple office / backend stuff).

ISO 13485 / 21 CFR 11 / ISO 14971 are just a few of the larger (medical) standards you need to comply with. There are also different requirements for each country you are dealing with (example Japans JPAL required data retention of 15 years, which we can cover with an internal procedure of tape backups in cold storage) Or EU with GDPR / MDR.

During a yearly Notified Body audit you need to provide evidence that you (auditee) are in control of the tools and data. For cloud services this is not the case. When Atlassian upgrades their server software, how can I prove that the data is not modified in any sense (Spoiler, I cannot). For the server, what we currently do is test upgrade / check data (SQL integrity check and random selection of document/issue) and then we move over to a new version. This is satisfy our NB that we comply with regulations, not for fun.

What happens if an upgrade breaks a plugin. (best case data is not accessible, worse case data is modified). I would never know until its too late (a user detects the errors), since it is done "in the cloud".

It will be even worse if you do everything in Atlassian Suite (QMS/DevDoc/Issue tracking/Post Market Surveillance), everything you do can be put into question. The burden of proof is on the Auditee side, not de Auditor. If you piss off an Auditor enough by not showing compliance, they can write up a major non-compliance which will cause lots of fallout. Think warning letter from the FDA, loss of certification (CE in Europe), hold on equipment exports etc.

This might sound like scaremongering but this is a really an actual risk, just GDPR non-compliance is already an issue, and that's not even a MedTech thing.

I think all the above would also apply for any Legal/DoD/high security work (but different legal framework).

Again, I understand the push toward the cloud for Atlassian and you cannot make everybody happy. But reading the comments on this thread and others, perhaps Atlassian does not understand their customers as well as they think they do (at least the subset that user server onPrem). It will be a loss for me to move away from the Atlassian suite due to the 8 years invested in the platform but the way this is handled the faith in Atlassian has taken a nosedive.

Like # people like this

Come Monday I will have to feel like an ass forwarding this announcement onto the numerous other small-medium companies I got started on Server products in recent years. I honestly think they will start taking the time remaining to begin migrating to the alternatives many of them had in mind.

They went with server either because of compliance regulations/security/etc, or cloud did not perform as they needed so a custom tailored server solution was required. That's not even going into the considerations of cost, and add-ons yet.

Like # people like this

Matteo and Erick, thank you for your detailed replies and I will make sure to follow up with our compliance team on the various standards you mentioned in your comments. 

When it comes to apps that help with compliance in Server, I'd love to hear the specific apps you are currently using so we can make sure to reach out to those vendors to help them build the equivalent in cloud. While we aren't at parity yet, in the next 3 years I believe our cloud app ecosystem will outnumber our current server apps.

On your requirements around the dynamic nature of cloud and the requirements to control all of your data, we have various programs in place to address these exact issues like the ability to pick your releases and improved encryption and data residency capabilities. 

Like # people like this

Hello Cameron,

Please drop me an email I'll give you these info.




Hi @Cameron Deatsch

In an ideal world, Atlassian could get their suite certified which would be awesome.

21 CFR 11 would probably be doable quite quickly, but the speed this is handled (see JRACLOUD-69893 open since jul/2018) forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical.

For getting it certified for use in MedTech, its "complicated". Every company does things differently depending on what they do and where they operate. This also depends on their Quality Management System (QMS) and Notified Body. For some reason NBs can't even agree with each-other how some items (like data storage / tooling etc) needs to be handled.

As mentioned previously, data integrity is a major item for NBs. See JRASERVER-65867 from Aug/2017 where I put in the request.

That said, currently the Atlassian Tooling is hitchhiking on our own internal QMS/Certification so the effort to maintaining it not a major hurdle after the initial verification & validation. For example the IEC 62304 defines different levels (A/B/C) of criticality of software depending on the product (Most are B or C) V&V of the tooling (this would include JIRA/Confluence/Bamboo/Bitbucket since they can influence the software (either by design inputs or code level). (upcoming IEC 62304-2 is even more stringent)

I would expect it to be a lot more difficult for Atlassian to get their suite certified (I'm not a NB so your mileage may vary depending who you ask), but I would expect an audit yearly at the least and formal Verification/Validation of every product release (or at least LTS versions and no intermittent "hot-fixes" without V&V).

You are now probably thinking, why would Confluence be part of the audit???. MS Office isn't put on that level of scrutiny. Well, if you do you QMS or design fully in MS Word, you actually need to do a V&V on MS Word to prove that critical data is not lost (potential hazard) and that's because its part of the "process" of development / QMS, You can now have your cup of SOUP (

As the above tries to demonstrate switching to Cloud isn't easy even with (partial) certification of the Atlassian cloud suite. Just one item of non-compliance can rule out cloud adoption (depending the NB/Country).

Regarding the apps that I currently use SynapseRT (no cloud option atm but probably can be replaced by X-Ray or Zyphir) and projectDoc (no cloud as well). Scroll already has Cloud so that will not be an issue. An important items is that you need to be able to export everything to file (PDF/Word) for external sources (NBs/etc). And I would have probably used SoftComply's eQMS if we already had our own. (nice product @Matteo Gubellini _SoftComply_ )

We are not a Fortune 500 company (if we were we would be running DC anyway), just a little fish in the big ocean of customers, so I do not think I can change the path we are heading, but an alternative from Atlassian for the users that cannot move to the cloud would be appreciated by all the user here. Or at least a proper reasoning why Server is different from DC (different codebase?) and cannot be supported anymore.

DC for 50 users and upwards?

Cloud in selfhosted docker service?

VPS hosted by Atlassian in each region?

Like # people like this

@Erick van Rijk thanks por your post. You are not alone in this ocean. We are in the same boat and despite some items of concern are already in the Roadmap the date is to close to the end of support (HIPAA as example 2023) which is risky for us to wait until last minute to decide our path. We need time for testing and piloting the new solution.

I understand we still have the DC option, but until when? Are the app developers focus 100% in Cloud? 
the point is, moving to DC requires an effort too, so how far can we go in that direction? For how long?


I think we will be ok with features,  but  regulation will be a hurdle to overcome so we can set our curse

I hope the little fish don’t need to look for a new ocean or at least a friendly aquarium:) 

Like # people like this

Erick, thanks again for the detailed response. I'm making sure this is shared with our compliance teams as we do need an answer in these areas.

Fabian, I'm sure we will meet the HIPAA compliance with plenty of time for you to test the system appropriately. Remember at any time we will grant you a gree cloud trial license that matches your current server maintenance term. 

On R&D investment, we will continue to invest in Data Center but with a focus on larger enterprise deployments. However, we will continue to overinvest in Cloud R&D largely due to the various asks coming from the individuals on this thread. Additionally, at any time you can get a 30 day trial of Data Center to see if it's right for you. 

Like Fabian Lopez likes this

@Cameron Deatsch, I already looked at DC and the costs are simply to high for our budget especially now. Just Confluence and Jira will put it over 50k a year. It would be cheaper to hire someone to spend half a year reworking our internal procedures to other vendors systems (if they don't already have an importer). I will probably spend the next year or so still using the Atlassian suite and keeping an eye on Cloud (already had a trial account for a while now playing around with it) and in the mean time looking for alternatives.

One thing other people mentioned is that also worries me is the EULA, where Atlassian can delete the data for any reason. (yes you can make automated backups etc. but without any system to put it in you just have a bunch of XML/SQL data sitting there). The current server solution actually allows us to take a year old snapshot and load it in vmware to access the data. What do you envision the cloud solution be to allow your cloud customers to access old data after 10+ years (maybe Atlassian won't exist anymore in 10 years)?

Looks like so far that other companies I've previously started on Atlassian products will begin migrating to other products as soon as they've decided on an alternative. No point sticking around and sinking any further effort into something that's being phased out anyway.

In future I won't be recommending Atlassian products either, the Cloud products often lead to annoyance, or just simply weren't even an option due to other reasons.

Many chose Atlassian products simply because they were the default, but now there's so many more options available on the market.

I don't think there's anything to communicate back to Atlassian regarding this, the decision's already been made. Most have already made the decision before about Server vs Cloud, most points that lead to choosing server in the past have not changed.

Like Metin Savignano likes this

@Cameron Deatsch  Thanks for addressing my concern about HIPAA. The question now is the path to follow to be better prepared for the new scenario.

1. Stay on the server version and wait for Cloud HIPAA readiness - It will probably generate some anxiety due to the uncertain date, it is like getting close to the waterfall in a little boat. It will impact our organization in other aspects due to the number of apps and customization we have.

2. Step approach, Server to DC, and then wait for Cloud compliance to move to Cloud. The question here is, how big the gap between DC and Cloud will be. Is this intermediate effort really needed?

Without a doubt, we will work on a transition plan, where the cost is one of the key variables too as well as the level of maturity reached by our users.

Fabian, both are good options. I'm actively pushing our R&D teams to accelerate both HIPAA and Fedramp compliance. On October 29, we're going to publish a new website that will help to lay out the pricing implications for each of these various paths so keep an eye out.

When you do decide, or have any concerns along the way, please reach out and I'd love to discuss the situation with your personally.

Just going to chime in from the medical developer world, as Matteo and Erick.  They quite eloquently expressed the issues facing us as we use Jira/Confluence as part of our QMS for medical work, and same with Confluence.  The amount of effort we have to go with during audits is enough; but showing this is in the cloud, and knowing that some of the plugins we work with flat out will not work in the cloud because of their integrations makes it impossible to move forward on cloud, full stop. 


The other big one is that we've figured out a way to integrate Bamboo into our QMS processes for software and firmware, with automated testing.  But there's no way to do any of that with Bitbucket, as this requires Windows to build/test/run, some of these are desktop applications which are apparently a dinosaur in the tools world these days, and there's no Bamboo DataCenter.  And honestly the use of Bamboo as build automation for these systems when we're literally 2 developers in the entire company (we are <50 employees in the company as a whole) is part of what allows us to move efficiently and effectively, because it lets us automate away a lot of manual things such as creating code diffs for history, running tests in parallel on multiple systems, generating system documentation, delivery of binaries to appropriate locations, creating build installs, and so on.  Our entire process has been built on this for ten years and now we're facing the fact we're either going to have to never get updates to it, and it'll eventually break, or either retool to manual processes and reduce our efficacy at our jobs, or find another suite of tools to go forward.  And again, because this is medical devices, we can't just put our sources, our binaries, and so on into a cloud.  We have to show full control for safety to auditors without warning and ensure we always have access to it, and that no one else does.  And getting historical access - what happens when we need to go back and pull 15 year old items from the cloud?  Will we be able to, or will we be at the mercy of your setup?  Will we be able to pull all the data for backup, archival, and submission to notified bodies if we need to?


Confluence has this issue for us as well - we've got it tailored not just into our documentation for the software and firmwares, but it's used by management and manufacturing as well, for everything from meeting notes, to tracking quality, to helpdesk and service guides for our phone staff, with links to tools and resources in other systems that are also internal-only, including direct links to file system.  And while we could for at least some of them "open a hole in the firewall to allow requests through", in a cloud system how will we know for sure it's always coming from Atlassian, and not a hacker or disgruntled former employee or a scanner tool, seeing what they can find?  Doing anything of that sort with the cloud migration increases the complexity of the system we must maintain, reduce our use of the tools, or move to an entirely different toolstack entirely.


To note too, this isn't just with notified bodies and following standards - the standards change based on the product and device.  But additionally our -customers- audit us, especially in certain instances, to insure integrity of the data and items.  And each of their processes is different.  Even if you could certify to all the various national bodies for notification, I know at least two of our biggest customers would have issue with it for a variety of reasons.


For those of us with Server, often times from what I'm seeing here is we're not just 'your tool' but it's become a critical part of an ecosystem.  A vital organ in the body of our businesses.  And you can't just pull out the liver, lungs, and kidneys all at once and replace them with a ventilator and a dialysis machine while keeping them in a sealed plastic bubble while you invent a new vaccine and not expect the body to suffer for it, if not outright die from the systemic damage done.


Not gonna lie, the future ahead now looks pretty scary for our use of Atlassian tools, and even if this were reversed 100%, the trust damage will be done.

Like # people like this

This is an incredibly bad idea.

I've been an Atlassian administrator for several years now. I have worked with a lot of companies, big and small. Some on Server, some on DC, some on Cloud. Many, many companies do not want Jira Cloud. They need their data on a server they control, behind a firewall they manage, that they can access even without the internet. They have customizations that won't work on Cloud. They rely on Add-Ons that aren't available for Cloud. And many of them are companies that can't justify $40k/yr for Jira alone.

Killing off Server is an incredibly backwards, harmful move. I see no technical reason to do this, it seems solely to force people onto Cloud or Data Center, where you make more money. This move seems entirely driven by greed and profits, not what's best for the customer. Keeping Server alive, as a product, has minimal overhead for you as a company. It's basically the same code as Data Center, which you aren't killing (yet). So it's not like Server was losing you money by existing. The only reason to kill it is to FORCE people into things that make you more money. That's bad for the customer.

Before, a customer could try Jira On-Prem for as little as a $10 starter license. Now the cheapest option they have is, what, over $40k? That is insane.

This is going to leave a huge gap in the market that some other company is going to come along and fill, stealing all of those customers away from you. There are a lot of companies out there with under 200 employees that have no interest in Cloud and can not afford or justify the cost of Jira Data Center.

"Don’t #@!% the customer"

"Be the change you seek".

Taylor, thanks for your feedback and for continuing to be part of the Atlassian community. I read your detailed comments above and your post on Medium.

You are absolutely correct that there are there is a subset of our customer base in highly regulated environments that may seem stuck without an option. But the reality is that when we do speak with those customers almost all of them use some sort of cloud technology in their businesses. Moreover, almost all of them have been adopting cloud technologies faster than various on-prem tech. It's on Atlassian to meet their various requirements for data privacy, extensibility, and apps. And since you're a member of the community I hope you agree that we've made significant progress in all of these areas over the last couple of years. 

And when it comes to these lower-tier customers, the price is not much different when you compare the current Server licensing fees and our cloud licenses. When you take this into account plus the cost of managing hardware and managing upgrades it's often a cost-savings for our customers in these tiers. We did not make this announcement to force these lower-tier customers to go to Data Center so we could raise their prices. 

Everyone at Atlassian takes "Don’t #@!% the customer" very seriously. This is a big change we know but we have never been shy with our customers about our cloud investments and future. Additionally, we spent a lot of time ensuring that all of our customers have the time to make the decision that is right for them and that we accommodate their various needs over the next few years. Server customers can still upgrade and purchase new marketplace apps after February. 

@Cameron Deatsch  all of that sounds nice, I'm sure your team spent a lot of time coming up with good, canned answers to all of the complaints that you knew you would get. But you're still not answering one thing.

"Killing off Server is an incredibly backwards, harmful move. I see no technical reason to do this, it seems solely to force people onto Cloud or Data Center, where you make more money. This move seems entirely driven by greed and profits, not what's best for the customer. Keeping Server alive, as a product, has minimal overhead for you as a company. It's basically the same code as Data Center, which you aren't killing (yet). So it's not like Server was losing you money by existing. The only reason to kill it is to FORCE people into things that make you more money. That's bad for the customer."

If keeping Server alive costs you basically nothing (since it's essentially the same product as Data Center, just with different licensing so that should be the case), why does taking away the CHOICE for customers make any sense?

I get that Cloud is the future, for many reasons. And I definitely think you should invest most of your time, effort, R&D, etc, into it going forward. But. no matter how much you improve Cloud, it will never be okay for all customers. There will always be a small, but very real, section of customers that require an On-Prem solution, for whatever reason, but cannot justify the minimum tier and cost for Data Center. Seems to me you really have three options.

  1. Keep Server and Data Center alive, as it is now, but continue to improve Cloud so that it becomes so good that most of your customers WANT to use it anyway, and leave Server alive for those few that can't. Leave the choice up to them.
  2. Stop selling new Server licenses, but add some Data Center tiers that are cheap enough so that small companies that can't move to Cloud have an affordable, viable choice. Make it so that 100 person company has a choice between Jira Cloud or Jira Data Center for about the same amount of money.
  3. Just kill Server, keep Data Center prohibitively expensive, taking away their choice.

Option 1 is the most customer-friendly, it leaves the most choice in their hands. Option 2 is less so, but at least your customers still have a choice. Option 3 just takes away their choice completely, and really is #@!%ing a lot of them.

Cloud is the future, fine. Then keep working on it. Keep pushing it. Keep focusing on it. Make it so good that they WANT to use it. Don't take away their options so they are FORCED to use it. Both options will get you where you want to go, but only one will screw over a lot of companies, both your customers and Partners, along the way.

Like # people like this

@Taylor Huston


Taylor, unfortunately, this conversation is futile. The thread was started by @Cameron Deatsch just to mitigate reputational consequences of this move and let us blow off steam.

Once a company starts moving towards IPO everything humane in it starts dying. Atlassian has reached their IPO. They died 5 years ago.

Like # people like this

Indeed, they've already made the decision, and indicate they're not interested in a server-equivalent-cost option.  

Even if I have a few years to keep using Server, that doesn't help me as I can't possibly buy the licenses I would need by Feb '21.  

We just invested a lot of time and money getting Jira Service Desk Server set up and customized as well, and all that is completely wasted.  I'm so angry I'm shaking.

Like # people like this

Asten, sorry this is causing you additional frustration. I'm sure there is a path forward for our companies to work together. 

If you're willing I'd love to chat over Zoom. I'll reach out over email. 

@Cameron Deatsch still would like an answer to this question:

If keeping Server alive costs you basically nothing (since it's essentially the same product as Data Center, just with different licensing so that should be the case), why does taking away the CHOICE for customers make any sense?

If you want to put all of your resources into Cloud to make it into a product that all companies will want to move to (which it is no where close to being at this point), that makes sense. You're still letting the customer make the choice, when THEY are ready.

Why, instead of doing that, are you taking away their options, their choice, and FORCING them to move to Cloud (or pay for Data Center, but this question is more based on smaller companies that are way below 500 users)?

Like Aleksander Olsen likes this

Hey Taylor, you're right, we are eliminating the choice for existing customers but we are giving 39 months heads up to make the choice. We're also allowing them to upgrade in the first year and buy more apps for the next 2 years. This is plenty of time for us to prove that our cloud can work for them, or help build the case to move to Data Center. And we know that when customers move to the cloud, they have higher satisfaction scores and get more value out of our products.

I also want to repeat again to the many people on this thread that they're absolutely right that there is a group of our smaller customers in regulated environments or have policies against having Atlassian data in the cloud. While we don't have an answer for those customers today, again, 3 years is a long time and with the entire industry moving to cloud services and with our investments in these areas, I know many of these customers will be able to make the move. Even your current company. 

@Cameron Deatsch that still doesn't really answer the question.

In your blog post you state "more than 90 percent of you [new Atlassian customers] start with Atlassian cloud". The key word there is start. Which means not all of them stay. And means that 10 percent decide from the beginning that Server is the best option. 

What about them? The fact is that, no matter how much you improve Cloud, it will never be the best fit for everyone.  So why take away their choice?

You can keep improving Cloud, keep making it better and better, invest in it, all that jazz. You can also keep Server alive for the small minority of customers that need it. These are not mutually exclusive options.

There is no technical reason to kill Server. It costs you nothing to keep it available for that small percentage customers that really want it. Nothing than the potential lost revenue that is. Cloud makes you more money. Data Center makes you more money (especially after you just doubled the price). So, really, is killing Server good for your customers...or just your shareholders?

And I want to make it clear, I ask these questions because I love Atlassian. It's a company who's products I've loved to work with, and it's been great for my career. Which is why you turning into just another big tech company who only cares about profit margins is so disappointing to me. Lots of tech companies talk big about not being evil, few manage to actually not be evil.

Like # people like this

I know many of these customers will be able to make the move. Even your current company.

Again, you're telling us that you know better than your customers do. You might want to re-consider your attitude?

Like # people like this

@Cameron Deatsch 

While we don't have an answer for those customers today, again, 3 years is a long time and with the entire industry moving to cloud services and with our investments in these areas, I know many of these customers will be able to make the move. Even your current company.

This is another issue, while I do admit Atlassian has given enough time to consider migrating to the Cloud or other vendors, but your assumption is everything will be fixed in the upcoming years.

Basically you are asking your existing customers to "trust" Atlassian that they will resolve all outstanding issues for the cloud we have now. From another perspective you are asking companies to keep investing (time/money) to stay with Atlassian because somewhere in the future they can move from Server/DC to the cloud. From a business standpoint this does not make any sense, effort can only be spend once.

If Atlassian asked the server customers 2 years ago "what do we need to have in place to allow you to move" and kept server alive until everything was settled (e.g. 100% working hybrid solution) it would be a different story. You probably get the remaining 90% transferred by then and have your everybody works in the cloud solution. But right now we are far from that.

Like # people like this

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Atlassian have given us no reason to trust that they will fix issues with the cloud products based on their past record on not fixing long standing issues with their current server products.

Like # people like this

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Atlassian have given us no reason to trust that they will fix issues with the cloud products based on their past record on not fixing long standing issues with their current server products.

Exactly. Having the server option was the great equalizer in this aspect with all of the add-ons and customizations you can do that just simply don't exist in their cloud offerings.

And then I see stuff like this from Cameron:

I'm sure we will meet the HIPAA compliance with plenty of time for you to test the system appropriately

And I can't help but wonder if they really think that's the best they can do in this whole situation. Why weren't these things implemented already and then start the timer on shutting down the server? Why is Atlassian putting themselves at risk here and then asking us to do the same with our companies/jobs?

This bears repeating because I think most, if not all of us fall into this category:

I ask these questions because I love Atlassian. It's a company who's products I've loved to work with...

We want you to succeed Atlassian. We want to succeed together. The reason why I keep returning to these forum threads is for the glitter of hope that maybe we can sway some sort of sensible decision here but I agree with a lot of others here where it looks like the heels are dug in and they are just gritting their teeth to get through this rough patch. I'm sorry to give you such a hard time @Cameron Deatsch , I know this is something you've been not looking forward to doing for a long time. You're the lightning rod here.

At least for my company, the question isn't do we go with the cloud or stay on server? It's, do we stay on what will eventually be unpatched software on our server or do we go with another company's server option?

Like Taylor Huston likes this
20 votes

How can you expect your customers to be ok with the HUGE price increases that will come from this ... especially during these times?

For instance this is what we pay annually for our Atlassian Products and apps.

Server - Total $38,643
Confluence -  $33,298
Jira Software - $5,345

To move away from Server to Data Center and retain all our current functionality would be ...

Data Center - $97,968
Confluence - $74,496
Jira Software - $23,472

To move to Cloud and lose much of our functionality as the apps don't exist

Cloud - $137,640
Confluence - $128,840
Jira Software - $8,800

Just to move to Data Center it would cost us over 2.5 times as much. There is no way that our organization will go ahead with that. They will tell me to start shopping around and planning a migration. Given that how does this fall in line with your value of "Don’t #@!% the customer"? Please, I love your products, but you are seriously missing the mark on not "#@!% the customer".

Davin, thank you for the detailed post. I sent you an email and would like to jump on a call to go through your products with my team to ensure we are presenting you with the best possible pricing for your options. You are absolutely correct that all future paths do lead to increased prices but we stand by those prices due to the value they deliver as well as the relative pricing of alternatives in the market. 

Also, we purposefully constructed this program to accommodate customers who may be affected by the global pandemic which we can discuss. 

Like Satvik Sharma likes this

What does Covid has to do with you increasing the prices by such an amount? Covid will hopefully be gone or mitigated in two to three years, your huge price increase will stay

Like # people like this

Also, we purposefully constructed this program to accommodate customers who may be affected by the global pandemic which we can discuss. 

Wait! What?! So you rose your prices, made licensing requirements out of reach for a lot of small/mid-size teams, and have set a date to remove current on-prem server options all in the name of taking advantage of the remote work era that COVID has forced many of us into? You may want to revisit that talking point, Cameron. It's probably coming out in the exact opposite way that your team thought it was going to sound.

Like # people like this
15 votes
David Willson Community Leader Oct 16, 2020

Remember server isn't actually going away, its the same bits as data center, if you buy a datacenter license your server instance still continues to work, so things are status quo if your organization can afford data center.  Cloud is the future! No doubt about that, and everyone that can go there should!!! For the middle ground few of us that can't go cloud, even thought we want to, and can't afford datacenter we are stuck in a serious way. Atlassian products are THE FREAKING BEST please please please continue to make them affordable so we arn't pushed to another inferior crappy vendor. After all,  one of the main Atlassian values is "Don’t #@!% the customer".

It's not going away, it's just becoming completely unaffordable for most small to medium businesses.

Like # people like this

David, thanks for your feedback and the last thing we want is for you to go to another vendor. We did not make these decisions lightly and you have a variety of options moving ahead.

First, I'd love to understand the specific reasons your organization can not adopt Atlassian's Cloud. We have a ton of development going into ensuring we eliminate the various scale, extensibility, compliance, and data privacy issues customers have when it comes to cloud. We also recently published our roadmaps across these areas which I suggest you explore here:

Also, we are offering all our Server customers cloud trial licenses for free that are co-termed with your Server license so you can explore cloud for your company at no expense:

Second, you can absolutely move to Data Center and effectively preserve your current Server environment while unlocking a ton of new Data Center features. If this is the path that is best for your company I suggest you look to move prior to February to lock in the best price for your company. 

Third, you can renew Server for 3 more years which gives us ample time to work with you to make either of the options above a viable path for your company.

Lastly, you can go to another vendor as you mentioned and if your company is serious about this choice, please let me know as I'd like to jump on a call and understand your direction. 

"Cloud is the future! No doubt about that, and everyone that can go there should!!! "

What a statement. Yes, cloud removes customers from the need to set up a server. But what other benefits are really there when it comes to serious business?

From my (maybe rather conservative) point of view: Our company is loosing control and is forced to trust, that somebody else will properly backup data, upgrade software, ensure data security, continue service for our vital project information. BTW: We have to maintain access to our project information 10+ years.

And this "someone" obviously has no real idea about what it means for an European company to move its vital data to a cloud "hosted somewhere in the world".

So, once again:

why is cloud the future?

Like # people like this

Thomas, you're absolutely correct that moving to Atlassian's cloud requires your organization to trust Atlassian with your data. We have a dedicated site to help with exactly this:

Additionally, Atlassian's cloud product unlock many new benefits purely beyond "hosting" your current deployment. You can learn more about those here although it's best to just go try it and see for yourself.

Lastly, we are well aware of the requirements for running cloud products in Europe. While we still have more to do to provide full data residency for all of our cloud products we do have data centers in both Germany and Ireland and roadmaps to improve our capabilities in this area. You can track our roadmap progress here: 


"Thomas, you're absolutely correct that moving to Atlassian's cloud requires your organization to trust Atlassian with your data."

Sorry, that's not sufficient. It's not only us who have to trust (and can audit) Atlassian, it's also our customers. And not only now, but also in the future.

So: moving from a self-hosted server under our control to a Atlassian cloud service (based on Amazon cloud servers) makes things really more complicated to us regarding compliance rules. And I am sure the cloud services are fancy and much more functionality than we have now, but remember: Only part of it would really be a benefit for us.

Thanks Thomas. 

What auditing capabilities would you need to enable for your customers?

Are there specific compliance requirements/standards we need to address for your industry or the industries you serve?

"What auditing capabilities would you need to enable for your customers?"


we are developing embedded hardware and software for various industries and still broadening our customer basis. In the past 15 years, we were very successful due to our flexibility regarding customer requirements, technically and organizationally.

Currently we must provide prove, that the project data is only accessible for authorized personal, which is rather standard. No hacking, no hidden and/or lawful access from states other than Germany. And it's rather easy for a internally hosted jira server.

How about that in cloud? Can you, can the app providers ensure and prove, that neither Australian nor US, (nor GB, nor other) states may enforce access to our data?

On the other hand: we all are on the move. New customers will come up with more specific requirements. On a self hosted server, it's in our hand if and how we answer these requirements. And it's our decision whether it's worth the effort or not. On a cloud based service, we simply can't control this.

So: when Atlassian will urge us to move to the cloud, we are on uncertain grounds. And that's not the basis we want to rely on.

We have evaluated various project management systems three years ago and have chosen Jira due to its functionality. We have done that with the outlook to have a project management system for at least the next 10-15 years. It's hard for us to restart that process again, but better now than in three or five years.

What I would like to see is that Atlassian would learn from the current customer feedback. That you would reenter a phase of evaluating how many customers would be happy with the cloud. And if there is enough of a customer base who need their private servers, that Atlassian would decide to let the server version live on.

Like # people like this

@Cameron Deatsch Cloud is the future. SaaS is not (for all things). And I think Atlassian is trying to conflate the two to trick it's customers.

Cloud, as in something like AWS where I don't have to set up a bunch of physical servers in my basement, is absolutely the future. The ability to scale up and down, set up things in multiple geographical regions, etc etc etc, that is the future. But it's still systems and things that I control. It's still on VMs that I configure, in a region I choose, behind firewalls that I manage, backed up on a schedule and to a location that I decide. Running applications that I decide when to update.

That is entirely different from what Atlassian is referring to as Cloud, which is using Jira as a SaaS product, where I have no control. No control over where the data is stored. How it's stored. How it's protected. When it's updated. Etc.

These are two entirely different things.

Like # people like this

Cloud is the future. SaaS is not (for all things). And I think Atlassian is trying to conflate the two to trick it's customers.

I think they are just using the term "cloud" here because it's a better known buzzword rather than trying to trick their customers. Kind of like how I use the term "computer virus" when talking to fellow employees or clients even if the malware is something else such as a trojan or worm. It just makes the conversation flow easier.

Don't get me wrong, you're completely right and I didn't really think about the differentiation between the two and it is important to make sure the correct terms are being used. SaaS isn't as "pretty" of a word as cloud and does lead to the thought of a subscription service and no one likes to hear that. You know what? I really hope you aren't right because if you are... wow, talk about a 180* switch from their own company values!

That said, I think Atlassian underestimated their customer base's expertise with this where we aren't falling for these general terms and we know much better about this whole thing than they thought. This isn't the first time I've had to deal with having a subscription service strong-armed over the previous offering but unfortunately for Atlassian, we don't use their products in a way that compliments having our data protected only by them in their cloud.


I'm a freelance Consultant and Trainer for Atlassian Products, in particular Jira and Confluence, in the DACH Region in Middle Europe.

I've some questions for the future and some suggestions (requirements for the cloud products). But first I want to express my disappointment.


You broke two Atlassion principles.

- Don't fuck the customer

- Open and transparent communicaiton.

It is obvious that this change is due to the idea of massively boosting your revenues in the short run. You are milking the cash cow. That is, of course, your right to do. It is a typical capitalistic move. But, and that is what you are underestimating, many people liked you and your products, because it seemed you would act on a different spirt, a new transforming spirit. And it also seems that you got caught by your own success.

OK but that's your mistake und you will have to deal with the long term consequences of losing some of your spirit, trust, fun and creativity. 


Here some concrete questions for my future as a Freelancer, Trainer and Consultant of Jira & Confluence.

Of course, I train and consult self hosted as well as cloud products. And I want to stay with that. But I need a self hosted instance of my own. First of all to train for myself and test different apps. Secondly some of the customers want to train an a training instance, not on their own instance.

So of course it is not affordable for me to own a Data Center License. Is there a possibility of developper licenses or training licenses for Data Center and its APPS? For non productive training instances without owning a productive instance?


Then some thoughts and requirements for small to mid sized businesses of the Middle Europe DACH Region with higher security requirements:

- They need a protected network. At the moment you can only access their jira/confluence domains via citrix server. So the requirement would be that a companies cloud site can be restricted to a predefined server network, eg. citrix servers.

- Garantee that all the data is stored within the European Union.

- Trust, that companies can really save their highly sensitive data on the cloud. At the moment, most companies do not have this trust in the DACH Region. This is a general cultural, not an Atlassian issue. And I'm not sure how you want to change that...

- Fun for the new Jira/Confluence Admin (See next section).


Finally I want to mention, that one of the big success factors was, that Admins could easily play around test and try it out, including all the apps of the marketplace. This is not so easy anymore, since most apps have not 10$ per year starter fees (server), but 60$ per year (cloud), and test periods of only one month. This is extinguishing the fun for the new Jira/Confluence Admin. And I have seen on many occasions, that this initial creative fun translated into passion und decisions towards your product for the whole company. It translated into big sales.

So please make it possible for the new jira/confluence admin on the cloud, to be as creative and have as much fun at a very low cost, like on the server product. You will be rewarded a hundred times.

Killing off this initial key success factor seems to be a sign, that you losing the ground under your feet.

Pls be aware, the key to your success was not because you acted like the big companies of the world, it was because you acted differently.

Do Not Lose Your Initial Spirit.

Kind Regards,


Like # people like this

I would really like to know how data security according Europe GDPR will be handled - after first shock I‘m really seeing it as a chance (I can see advantages in cloud and I‘m sure time over the next 4 years will give is even more) 

But right now - at this moment - no chance moving to cloud without getting killed by our data security chief.... 

Like # people like this

Mike, thanks for the long and detailed write-up. The request for non-production Data Center deployments to "play" around with is definitely something I'll bring back to the teams. 

Additionally, thanks for the detail on the requirements for cloud customers in Germany. I believe we can address many of these requirements with our data residency and other security-related roadmap improvements.


Everything we do for GDPR is documented here:

We realize the recent invalidation of Privacy Shield causes some issues in this area but we are actively working on addressing our customer feedback in the area. 

I'd ask you to not write off Cloud. Go try it out. Setup some projects, use the mobile-apps. 

@Cameron Deatsch

Thx for adressing the issue of non production datacenter licenses in your team.

I have another request for the cloud product.

Most companies have a staging environment. Most of the time 2 installations, sometimes three. Production, Test, Dev... It was possible, because only the Production license had to be paid with Server Products.

How can this be achievend on cloud? At the moment you would have to pay 2x the price for having a test/dev environment in addition to production...

For professional use it is very important to test your new customization, scriptrunner scripts, etc.



Like Steve Kipping likes this

Hey @Mike

I do believe Cloud premium comes or will come (gotta check the roadmap) with a Sandbox environment attached to it as our test/staging environment 



@Cameron Deatsch and the Atlassian Team:

A lot of very experienced admins have now posted on this thread the reasons that we cannot move to Cloud: technical, legal, contractual, regulatory, integration, etc. A lot of us evaluated Cloud in the past and found it did not meet our unique business requirements. (My company migrated from Cloud just a few years ago after initially deploying there and finding we could not accomplish what we wanted to do in that environment.)

Your response so far has essentially been "Atlassian understands your business better than you understand your business!"

Frankly, this is insulting. We do understand Cloud, and we do understand the efforts Atlassian is undergoing to improve your offering there... and it is still not the right solution for us.

Give us some pricing tiers for DC that we can reasonably work with, or be honest and admit that "Cloud First" is a precursor to "Cloud Only", and that DC customers can similarly expect to have the rug pulled out from under them in a few years as well.

Hi @Cameron Deatsch 

in the past 10 years I have worked for many small and medium companies in Europe (especially Germany) as administrator and consultant introducing Atlassian products into their ecosystem.

In light of the policy change I want to share my experience to give an insight why server products (or at least Data Center tiers below 500 users) are so important:

Let's say the company has 500 employees. The usually use case is the following: a small team (for example in development) starts evaluating Jira using a $10-licence. They like what you can do with the tool. The company is buying a 50-user-licence so the whole team can use Jira. After a while other teams learn from the experience of the first team or evaluate Jira for themself. Sometimes the company upgrades to a higher tier (i.e. 200), sometimes there are even two or more parallel licences in place because Team B didn't know that Team A already uses Jira. (Yes, this happens very often!)

The user tier in the company is rising over several month sometimes years. Suddenly the marketing team wants to use Confluence, but only for 50 users. But now the development team needs access to Confluence. A higher tier of Confluence is necessary. Step-by-step the Atlassian tools are getting more and more important. Isolated solutions in different teams get consolidated to one solutions (i.e. as a 500-user-tier).

Finally the switch to Data Center may take place.

But it took the company several years of using Atlassian Server products in lower tiers before finally making this step. Often the company needs this time to build trust in your products and see what they are capable to achieve with them. Only after all this time the company is willing to invest in a Data Center solution.

I've seen and supported this exact process many times. But with the new model this process will never happen. The company will use other inferior tools.

Cloud products will never be considerated by those companies, because of company policies and/or the strict EU GDPR or the even stricter German DSGVO. Fact is, the most companies I know want full control over their data on their own infrastructure.

In my opinion the solution is simple: please consider offering lower user tiers for your Data Center products (i.e. 50, 100 & 200 for Jira and Confluence). That way Atlassian still supports the described process for small and medium companies. Otherwise you will not only loose the customers who would start using server products in the next years. You will also loose the customers who just started using your products at a low entry tier and are willing to switch to Data Center in the next 5 to 10 years.

Totally I agreed. 

I'm an ATSP and also a server administrator. 
In Japan, many companies (even in enterprise) will take similar 'bottom-up' approach to introduce and expand software products. Due to some reasons (laws, industry regulations, comany regulations, available apps, customizations), Cloud is not a solution for us and some (not a few) customers.  

New licensing model definitely will kill that approach. 
I would much appreciate if Atlassian will offer an alternative way.
ie) Adding lower user-tiers for DC upto 500 users - like 50, 100, 250.


You're absolutely correct. The incremental expansion from a Starter license to a Data Center deployment is something we have spent a lot of time building over the last decade. This is actually a key reason we launched 10 users for free on our cloud products to lower the barrier even more to getting started with Atlassian's products.

Additionally, with cloud we offer even more flexible per-user pricing that is dynamic with customer's usage so when the market teams want to join, they just can, you don't have to wait to purchase an upgrade. Because of these reasons we actually see user expansion in cloud outpace server across all customer types.

Lastly, on your quote, "Cloud products will never be considered by those companies, because of company policies and/or the strict EU GDPR or the even stricter German DSGVO." You are correct that Atlassian can do more to address these customers' requirements and we are working to do so. However, while your experience in the companies you work with may be counter to this, we actually see the adoption of our Cloud product growing as fast in Germany, or faster than many other markets we currently serve. 

But know that your request for lower Data Center tiers has been heard and we will continue to take feedback from customers and partners in this area. 

Alexander makes a fantastic point, and something Atlassian seems to have clearly misunerstood when making this decision. Stop pushing cloud as an option for this, it's a non-starter for many companies who need control of their data and the server. You MUST implement lower user license tiers for Data Centre if you are to persist with this path.

I've still yet to see a good reason given for why the Server versions are being discontinued, especially if you are continuing to offer the Data Centre version which is pretty much identical. All I can determine so far is that it's purely financial. I understand you're a company that ultimately exists to make money, but I believe you've severaly misunderstood how Server can be used to start engagement with Atlassian products in a company.

Like # people like this

As a part of a large non-profit organization, we need to look closer into Data Center options, but for now am taking a deep breath to avoid switching to more colorful language as response to the recent announcement to discontinue the server line.

And please spare use with the "journey" and "partnership" euphemisms while you are effectively pulling the carpet from underneath all of us that cannot use any cloud service.

What I would like to hear are realistic non-cloud offerings, as otherwise we will start looking for a different product effectively Monday. 

What this move already did is massively undermine the trust in Atlassian as a strategic partner and this will have a multiplicative effect in our organization unless some mediating measure for non-cloud options is announced very soon.

Hi Kyb, let me know if you want to speak directly over Zoom as I have no problem hearing the more colorful language directly and I promise to avoid the euphemisms.

I'd also like to understand why your non-profit organization can not adopt Atlassian's cloud. We offer very friendly terms for non-profit companies:

However, if Data Center is the best path for you, I'd like to make sure you have all the information you need to make this decision. The last thing we want is to lose you as a customer. 

Thank you for the reply.

zoom might actually be a good idea, as there are many other units of our organization in the same situation and I'd be happy to share with them whatever good news there are. Especially since the information prepared for this announcement seems not to cover Community license holders.

As to why we cannot go into the cloud (not to mention the GDPR headaches that such a move would create):

We used Jira and Confluence (and some more) as the main tool for all our internal communication, documentation, discussion and project management. For these things, we cannot accept the risk of a user or Atlassian being compromised and our information being exposed.

Hence we run Atlassian products only on our internal network - they are not exposed to the internet (and never will be). And this policy will stay in place for the foreseeable future. We'd rather switch products entirely than migrate into the cloud.

In addition, we run shell scripts on the server itself to automate certain aspects in combination with other intranet-only "on premise" services which I cannot see happening "in the cloud".

And last but not least there is user management - we maintain our internal user directories for all employees and also use that to manage use/access to our Atlassian installations. The amount of effort needed to securely(!) connect our directories to an Atlassian-owned cloud is a showstopper on its own.

In the past, Atlassian has been very generous with Community licenses for which we are very grateful! But the only remaining non-cloud option for the future seems to be the very expensive Data Center license, which turns the generosity upside down. Please correct me if I missed some other non-cloud alternative.

Assuming that the decision to stop selling/supporting Server licenses is irreversible, the only option I see for us to continue using Atlassian products are massively discounted Data Center licenses for former Community license holders..

Like # people like this

Thanks Kyb. I'll reach out to you via email so we can get some time to connect.

Atlassian does offer 75% off cloud licenses as part of our community licensing program but we understand this may be an issue for regulated environments.

@Cameron Deatsch 

We're a non-profit in a similar situation - and I expect many non-profits are as well due to the nature of their work in serving remote and underprivileged communities. 

We live in remote Alaska and have a WAN connection of about 4mbps with a low bandwidth cap. Cloud is 100 percent not an option for us given our current WAN options and intermittent connectivity.  The discontinuation of Atlassian's on-prem nonprofit licensing program will be crippling for our on-prem environment and the services we provide to the community.  

Like # people like this

Thanks Kyle. 

First, how are you using our products in those communities? This is a really interesting use case?

Second, we're working on how to address the feedback we are getting from community license customers. Expect more here. 

Lastly, if you need additional licenses you can definitely apply for them now and remember they will work for perpetuity in your environments.

On-prem is not an interesting use case.  We use Jira and Confluence how I imagine many do, for internal process documentation, forms and form-based workflows, organizing and collaborating on tasks within teams.  We have community development programs tracking and accepting grant applications internally, as well as caseworkers who track their work activities relating to external clients.  

We've spent the past two years moving all of our resources into Atlassian's on-prem tools, and it saddens me to realize that we'll likely need to find another solution after a lot of effort to get everyone on board with Atlassian.  

Like # people like this

The cloud version of Atlassian software has severe limitation, if you ever used Structure or Scriptrunner on the server side you will see what I talk about.

On our structure we easily have 30000 issues, and there's lot of feature like SJQL that are not on cloud, also on scriptrunner side most of the most useful issuefunction are not there.

Lastly we have  lot of CUSTOM plugin internally done that would never be compatible on cloud.   We have a dockered environment with 6 nodes which work well but the cloud version of atlassian is VERY far to be able to customize the way we can do it right now on the server/data center.

The price increase and the 'include' product are not really that useful, the Jira portfolio if we don't want it, we cannot anymore.  They include their 'support' but we honestly never used it in 10 years since usually problem come from plugins.

The big part is the jira server desk, we do not need the data center, we have 10000 users on server and its working fine, we pay like 40k? not 350k, this increase justify changing software most likely or stopping using jira server desk for us, we will have to find another solution within jira most likely and do our own custom plugin that would be way to chapter then 300k + increase.

Martin Poirier


Thanks Martin. I'll have one of our Enterprise Advocates reach out to you. For an environment of that size and complexity Data Center should be the answer at least for the interim. In fact, I know Ubisoft already has multiple Data Center deployments so maybe there are other ways to address this challenge. 

9 votes
David Willson Community Leader Oct 19, 2020

An open letter to the founders - - please make data center licensing more affordable.

Want to hear from me? Well, hear it loud and clear: We're out.


We are a tiny, tiny blip of a customer for you. Less than 10 users. There's no way I'm going to migrate us to Cloud or DC when all we're looking for is a simple documentation system, and by the way, one that we can secure ourselves on-premise without having to worry about someone else's "whoopsie" in a firewall config somewhere letting people access all of our technical notes.

Confluence was beginning to act as a gateway drug of sorts -- we were starting to look seriously at Jira, and already signed up for Statuspage. We've been Trello users for several years now. We love the products, but not enough to pay what you're asking. I feel that there's a lot of other organizations in a similar boat, and you're going to miss out on more business than you realize. Or, maybe the plan is just to jack prices up on the poor suckers who stay to the point where the lost customers won't matter.

Either way, we're done. I'm sorry, but that's just reality. You really screwed the pooch on this one.

Sorry to hear this Dustin. It sounds like you've already made the decision but I hope you realize your current 10 user starter licenses will continue to work in perpetuity. Additionally, we offer our cloud products for up to 10 users for absolutely no cost whatsoever. 

All I ask is you go try Confluence cloud. Go check out the new editor. We moved to Confluence cloud at Atlassian a couple of years back and the new editing experience is pretty incredible. If you try it and you think it sucks come post here and tell us why, or, I'm happy to broker a call directly with our product management team so you can tell them directly.

Granted, if we lost you forever, I'm sorry to hear that.

Like Dave Meyer likes this
6 votes
David I'm New Here Oct 18, 2020

Hi altogether,

I was really disappointed and sad when I read your announcement this weekend.

We are young students and use Jira to manage our projects at school and for our small blog where we have a team of ten people. Additionally, we use Confluence as our wiki and knowledge-share for our projects. The 10-user-license was great, but meanwhile we have some more users, because I could convince more classmates for Jira :)

Happily we were then provided with an academic license from Atlassian this year - big, big thanks for that again, we were so happy!

Your tool is really amazing and there couldn't be any better tool than Jira for us. As we are tech freaks too, Trello would be to boring for us as we like to configure our personal workflows and yes, simply customize everything. But because we are students and a small team at our blog (our hobby project), we can't afford it to pay for Jira Cloud and Confluence Cloud licenses.

What would be the pricing for us? At this time, we use Jira with 30 people total (classmates + teachers + team of our blog).

Currently for Jira + Confluence Server: $0/year

Looking at Cloud, this would be for
Jira Cloud: $3,500/year (with academic license, 50% off: $1,750/year)
+ Confluence Cloud: $2,500/year (with academic $1,250/year)
= $6,500/year in total ($3,000/year with academic discount)

This is too much. Please don't misunderstand, we really appreciate your work and would be willing to pay for this a bit, but not that much. But we really don't have that money. With the ads on our blog, we only pay our server costs (where our self-hosted Jira runs on for example).

Either Atlassian reconsiders this decision, otherwise we will have to look for alternatives starting the following months. That would be really sad, as we really like your tools.

I would be happy if you could discuss this decision in your teams at Atlassian and reconsider some things in doing this.

David, thanks for your reply.

We've received a lot of feedback related to our community and academic licensing and are working to come up with programs to address this feedback. 

Do not force us to the Cloud please. We are using Jira & Condluence because we can run it on our own Servers. Our Data must stay on our own Servers behind our Firewall.

5 votes
Norbert I'm New Here Oct 18, 2020

An obvious step regarding the last years...

I'm supporting some customers on running atlassian Software different sizes and constellations. Also I'm buildung Up new environments at the moment. Now I've to tell them that they are no longer free in their decision how to run their environments. And for some reasons cloud solution won't fit their needs. I'm sorry for that, but also atlassian becomes more and more a shareholder company ignoring customer needs.

Hello @Cameron Deatsch 

We want to ask you one question:  Why 02/2021 ?

Do you and your bosses live on Moon now? We are struggling with pandemic, all countries are reporting daily records now, companies are trying to survive. And Atlassian came up with a date 02/2021 as death line.... How should IT admins ask own CEOs for decission now?  Maybe he is now in hospital fighting for his live....   Please look to the mirror and think about it.

Dirk Ronsmans Community Leader Oct 19, 2020

Well @Julius Zatroch

it's not like the deadline of moving to Cloud/DC is 02/2021. The sales of new server licenses will be ended then.

Support end will be 02/2024

Like # people like this

Hi @Dirk Ronsmans 

I know other dates, but everybody see first one. Many companies are evaluating first or second or third Atlassian product now, many Atlassian partners have prepared project for customers but are waiting from March because of pandemic. This all must be finished till 02/21... Atlassian placed bomb and it will smash not only thousand customers, but thousand peoples working by partners...

It looks Atlassian is using pandemic to force companies go to own cloud... It's disgusted and its disgracefull to all workers in first line helping people in this hard times.

Like # people like this

Our projects pay for our licenses.  I cannot pay in February 2021 for a project that might not come until 2022.   I can't pay for 3 years up front because that's not how budgets work in much of the real world.  

The only option for us is to renew what we can by February and spend the next year migrating to another solution.  

Like Taylor Huston likes this

Julius, you're absolutely right to ask about the timing of this announcement and our program. This is something we spent a lot of time debating and rolling out to ensure that all customers have plenty of time to make the right decisions for their business. 

For new purchases, you will see that our cloud products at the lower tiers are not too much different from our current Server products. I know that many of our customers do not believe they can use our Cloud products yet but we are actively working to address these many issues. Additionally, we offered all our cloud products for up to 10 users for free.

For existing customers, we have an entire program in place to help accommodate customers that are affected by the pandemic. You can read about that here:

Or just reach out to us via:

Repeating what was said in the other thread: you have forced us to begin the migration planning for a Jira server alternative.

These alternatives will include products from your competitors. There's no other way of going about it. We picked Jira Software a few years back precisely because we could run in-house.

Your announcement is worrying and shows Atlassian cannot be trusted.

You have likely lost this one customer but you probably already knew this.

Nuno, I'm sorry to hear this. I believe we can address the many issues you might have over the next few years. However, if you do choose to go an alternative direction would you be willing to have a discussion on the direction you are taking?

Thank you for following up, Cameron.

I do not see what else we can contribute. We have been a customer for a few years and the server solution worked very well for us.

By giving your customers three years to transition away from server deployments, you know how impactful your decision was.

At this point, my company has begun a migration plan as you'd expect. We're considering our options and expect to complete the deployment before the end of next year.

In all likelihood, we won't be renewing our subscription next year. There's no point.

Like # people like this

By giving your customers three years to transition away from server deployments, you know how impactful your decision was.

This is absolutely the 1 thing I'm giving Atlassian credit for in this whole situation when it comes to the bombshell announcement that they gave. They truly are giving us plenty of time to get things figured out and we've seen much worse from other tech companies.

And who knows, maybe in that span of time they'll be able to bring their cloud offerings up to par to actually accommodate for the concerns that their customers have. I mean, I know in my case I just simply can't have my data stored in their cloud, but perhaps they'll gain a few extra customers for at least treating us well on the timeline.

Like # people like this
They truly are giving us plenty of time to get things figured out

They did but, in our specific case, it matters little. Our Jira deployment is purely for internal use: there's no customer-side visibility, no direct Internet access.

We could run in whatever is the latest version for a long while but we won't. We're again going through the process of choosing candidate alternatives and allocating the development resources to migrate the data, just as we did a few years ago when we deployed Jira.

I doubt we can even get approval to spend money when our subscription is due for renewal next year. Atlassian's over-the-weekend announcement didn't go down very well over here.

Good luck transitioning to the cloud with all its nickel-and-diming joys. 

What a waste.

Like # people like this

Looks like my posts are being automatically deleted. Not sure what is going on.

Here's what I had written earlier.

They truly are giving us plenty of time to get things figured out

They did but, in our specific case, it matters little. Our Jira deployment is purely for internal use: there's no customer-side visibility, no direct Internet access.

We could run in whatever is the latest version for a long while but we won't. We're again going through the process of choosing candidate alternatives and allocating the development resources to migrate the data, just as we did a few years ago when we deployed Jira.

I doubt we can even get approval to spend money when our subscription is due for renewal next year. Atlassian's over-the-weekend announcement didn't go down very well over here.

Good luck transitioning to the cloud with all its nickel-and-diming joys. 

What a waste.

Like # people like this

"And who knows, maybe in that span of time they'll be able to bring their cloud offerings up to par to actually accommodate for the concerns that their customers have. "

I agree with you, three years give us time to choose the direction we will be going. But (apart from the trust level we need to reach again) the cloud version must reach the level of security and compliance already in 2021, otherwise we would not have time to evaluate it properly.

Like # people like this

I feel like this announcement was not well thought out. If instead, you had begun reaching out to server users and asking why they did not or could not move to the Cloud, and resolved answers to their questions first before sunsetting server products, then you would not have as many upset customers.

This feels like an announcement that should have happened next year, not this one.
You are asking customers to move from a mature and well-documented platform (server) to a brand new but still half-baked one (cloud).

Instead, it very much feels like you thought you knew better than the customer, and did not properly account for your unknown unknowns. Issues that you did not know you did not know.


Atlassian has offered Cloud products for over a decade and our current cloud platform has been around for 4 years. We have much detailed analysis of the various reasons customers have not chosen our cloud products (many are mentioned on this thread). The good news is we have eliminated many of these blockers over the last couple of years including improved app availability, performance and scale requirements, security and user management, and much more. When we compare what we have delivered along with our current roadmap ( we believe we can address every concern a customer might have well before the end of server maintenance in 2024.

If Atlassian is truly committed to helping every company move to the cloud, even with issues as I mentioned in my thread responding to "Being Appalled", I would gladly like to get on a Zoom call to discuss how you could take our company there.

Like # people like this

I was always a fan of working with Atlassian tools and happy to recommend it to peers in our industry.

We are a small enterprise (<100 users) working in a regulated environment (medical devices, FDA/CE) with strict requirements on validation of process tools before roll out to production and on data retention. Jira is a critical tool for our operations for more than 9 years. We made significant investments for setting up Jira and connecting it with other tools. We even started to develop own plugins for this purpose.

My current understanding of your move is that Atlassian forces us to look for alternatives, because:

Switching to Data Center would result in a ridiculous cost increase of approx. factor 5-6 without actually getting relevant new functionality. We might manage to address validation requirements, but we would have to pay the full price of an (for us anyways much oversized) license even during the 10 year data retention period starting when the last project using Jira/Confluence was finished.

Jira Cloud would not allows us to fullfil validation requirements due to the number, frequency and lead time for new version rolled out by Atlassian.

Besides, asking companies in regulated environments to evaluate, make a decision and move to a new deployment until Q1/2021 is also really ridiculous. This leaves me with a bad feeling if you now ask/force me to move to Jira Cloud which makes the company even more dependent on Atlassian.

I would really like to hear from Atlassian what they recommend small and medium enterprises in regulated environments like medical device development, aerospace, automotive, pharma,.. Do these companies not belong to your target group anymore?    

5 votes
Mirek Community Leader Oct 20, 2020

Hi @Cameron Deatsch

I always give objective feedback looking at positives however few things on this journey to Cloud still worries me and I cannot give opinion is this a good or bad.. 

I am part of Atlassian ecosystem for many years.. I saw many changes .. some good some bad... But definitively I know that gathering feedback about server real usage should be done far before announcing that you end selling it.. Based on this you few years back should decide about the roadmap and what is important, so that this could be a smooth and fair transition to everyone.

It was simple as starting a direct discussion with all of your server customers like that called "What if in next year you have to end using Server.. What you would do?" and you would get exactly the feedback that you can use to see if ecosystem is ready and simply drive it or postpone a little bit the decision to still prepare this and that.. or give people a early notice that you consider this when there is a chance so that we can start focus on details or not spend money in the last 2 years for customizing server instances with server apps and integrations to do it again..

Now in such sort time we have to give a recommendation to all of our customers based on emotions and without proper preparation usually see as a result higher cost in all options.. It was not quite good way of removing a offering that made us where we are now..

Anyway I am not a top article writer but I decided to put few more words from a perspective of a old Atlassian user that born without Clouds and had many journeys already..

Grab a cup of coffee, read if you want.. if you agree it is fine put a like button, if not it is also fine.. That is all the point.. we all have different perspective we can like something or not and different way of handling things.. we have a choice and we should still have it until it is really ridiculous or non-logical. Together as a TEAM we can get to a solutions that would make everyone happy, but if we would be hit by more and more that kind of short notice announcements and quickly decide we cannot do much to make it smooth and we can some day lose motivation to even do it..

Anyway I still hope in a long perspective the decision that you make at Atlassian are good and of course personally as a loyal person you can count on my feedback and expertise on many things as usual, but definitively that need to work in both ways..

This announcement has both saddened and angered me. If this isn't a great example of "#@!%ing the customer", I would hate to see what Atlassian thinks is.

I have been a champion of Atlassian in my company for the last 7 years. In my part of the business, we use Server versions of JIRA, Bitbucket and Confluence. On Monday we started the process of calculating whether a move to Data Center was even possible as, like many other customers, Cloud is not and never will be an option.

This will be a decision made not just on whether it is affordable or not, but after this announcement, whether Atlassian can be trusted enough, to move to Data Center. I believe that I can license my Server instances immediately with Data Center licenses without even having to reboot so I can see no justifiable reason for the end of the Server versions, unless it is a precursor to the end of the Data Center versions also.


Atlassian Server Champion (retired)

4 votes

This is a really big deal.  I'm torn, but I like it.  
I'm looking forward to the great ways we can be successful with government requirements without having to scale all the way up to data center.  

We'll find a way! 

Thanks Billy. I believe you're based in the US and the teams are working like hell to get our products Fedramp certified. You may have seen that we just launched Trello Fedramp certification. You can track our roadmap in this area here:

Hi @Cameron Deatsch 

Thank you for your amazing products and the journey me and others were honoured to have with you. My one started ten years ago, hard to believe it's been a decade now. And I hope this is not the end of it. 


I have one question: 

Could you please tell us what was the reason to discontinue your server products? After all there are many customers who are still satisfied having JIRA stand alone server and for you, Atlassian, it shouldn't be a lot of troubles to support it since it's basically Data Center without some features, right? So what exactly makes you do this?

Streamlining that development effort presumably allows them to focus on some of the other teenage feature requests and bugs in Cloud.

Take a look at the age and scale of the old bugs.

Things like the inability to rename a Group after creation require fundamentally re-engineering other components:

Does that imply they will they fix Cloud? Probably not.

Viktor, thanks for your decade of involvement in the Atlassian community. I've only been here for 8 years and before my current role, I actually managed the R&D teams for Server and Data Center.

Our CEO Scott goes into detail on the reasons behind this decision in this post


Maybe I've missed it but I don't see a good explanation for why Server is being discontinued in that post.

Like # people like this

TBH I don't see a good explanation in that post either. 

The least you could do in this case is lock Data Center license to one node only and keep the same price Server has now adding lower user tiers licenses.

Boom and you don't get to support another product, you keep your clients happy, you get to keep you clients. 

But you would do that only if you would care about your customers. 

Like # people like this

Or just leave the product as it is, and add lower tiers with limited or no support like the server starter tier. One product, no additional hassle, customers kept.

Like # people like this

It's always going to be the things they don't say which is the most telling: $ $ $

Those of us on servers aren't paying as much as those in the cloud. They've probably figured that for every XX people who leave, the 1 person who will bite the bullet and move to cloud will make up for that revenue lost. And they won't have to deal with as many pesky "penny pinchers," as their investors probably think that's only why we've stayed on the server plans.

To me, the truly disparaging part of all this is how they're trying to clink pints with us and trying really hard to get us to say - "WOW! You guys were right all along! The cloud is SO MUCH better than my on-prem server. All these years I was so wrong about the cloud. Thank you for showing me the light, Atlassian!" But only a small handful of users here have done it and then again they responded so quickly after the creation of this thread that I can't help but think fanboyism may be at play.*

All I'm seeing right now are the inherent limitations and a LOT of promises and coming soons for very real concerns when moving to the cloud. They're asking us to trust them - and in many cases put our own jobs, our company's reputation, and our customer's privacy at a larger risk than we had before because ... ($ $ $) ... reasons?

*Previous to this, I would have called myself an Atlassian fanboy because they really do make great products and I thought their licensing policies were more than fair. But I certainly can't call myself that now in any capacity. More than anything, that makes me sad.

Like # people like this

We have customers who need Server because they must run Jira and/or Confluence inhouse for indisputable reasons. It must be understood that Jira and Confluence are used to manage and store a lot of internal confidential information. Often this information is crucial to their business and an important competitive advantage. It is therefore unthinkable to put this know-how on a cloud that is not under their very own control.

Now these customers are urged to switch to Data Center, and at the same time, prices are raised significantly. I wonder if Atlassian did not consider that both of these steps, and especially in this combination, would destroy their customer's trust in Atlassian as a reliable software provider? Should our customers ask us if we think that Data Center has a future, I must say I would not know what to answer.

In addition to that, while for a larger enterprise customers, Data Center would at least be an option, we also have a lot of small business customers. We have always adored how Atlassian supports small businesses by offering very affordable prices for them. We've also contributed to this idea by making sure that the prices for our apps have been very affordable for the lowest tiers.

But now, Atlassian has completely removed the low entry barriers for small businesses. Data Center start at 500 users with prices that are simply not affordable for small companies. Let's face it: you're kicking them out.

Atlassian's step has significantly changed they way we see this company. And not for the better, I'm afraid.

Mr. Appalled, what are these indisputable reasons you mention?

I have yet to meet a customer that has absolutely no SAAS technology in their companies. If there is something unique about the data stored in Atlassian, I'm sure we will be able to address their concerns with our roadmap of security, compliance, and data residency.

We know this change will frustrate some customers but we are investing heavily to continue to maintain the trust we have earned with our customers over the years. I'm personally available to jump on Zoom with any customer that may have concerns trusting Atlassian going forward. 

@Cameron Deatsch Here is one. Your Acceptable Use Policy prohibits us from using your cloud services at the risk of having our data deleted without prior notice.

I represent a small studio that makes art, animations, and games for an adult audience. There are many companies and artists like mine that are in the same boat as us.

This is what your policy states you do not allow:

Is deceptive, fraudulent, illegal, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, harmful to minors, pornographic (including child pornography, which we will remove and report to law enforcement, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), indecent, harassing, hateful


Atlassian may permanently or temporarily terminate or suspend a user’s account or access to the services without notice or liability if Atlassian (in its sole discretion) determines that a user has violated this Acceptable Use Policy.

Who decides what is 'obscene' or 'indecent'? Our professional every-day work contains much data that many would consider as being such. At the same time, it's completely benign!

How can you ask any company to take on the risk of having their legitimate business data deleted without notice?

I have already filed a ticket about this, and the response was that "This (policy) is not something that we have plans to alter."

I hate to feel the need to address this issue publicly like this, but we have been incredibly frustrated by this issue.

Personally, I would have no problem moving to the cloud. It was your Acceptable Use Policy that made us move to server in the first place. Despite, however, claiming that you want to help enable every business to move to the cloud, you very obviously are saying that you not want 'our' type of business.

We'd happily join the cloud if you would just let us!

Like # people like this

Edit: spam Apparently the spam filter resulted in a double-post of my original.

To follow up:

I have yet to meet a customer that has absolutely no SAAS technology in their companies.

We do not use SaaS for most operations in our company. Only IaaS, specifically because of the tyranny of Terms of Service policies allowing said companies to delete any data they find objectionable without notice, even if it is totally benign.
Our file storage and sync are self-hosted.
Our email is self-hosted.
Our Atlassian products are self-hosted.

It's not that we don't want to, it's that almost every SaaS company does not want us. The ones that do, such as Dropbox, are prohibitively expensive for the value that they provide.

We do use Adobe CC, but that is only because their ToS permits our content, and the content made is hosted locally.

Like # people like this

@Cameron Deatsch, these are just some of the reasons that are indisputable:

  • Contractual:
    The customer is a service provider and manages projects for their customers with the help of Jira and Confluence, and their customers insist that all information is strictly confidential and kept locally. It's indisputable to start negotiating  contracts with all of their customers to allow cloud usage. And the risk would be high that those customers switch to another service provider that doesn't require them to accept cloud usage. So no discussion about that, it's that simple.
  • Legal:
    Laws require personal data to be kept under the company's own control. It's even so that only a specific group of employees is given access to these data, often only for a certain period of time (like 24 hrs). It's unthinkable to  store these data outside where it's impossible to have full control over it.
  • Integration:
    Hosted Jira and Confluence can be tightly integrated in a company's workflow and infrastructure, and it's a level 1 requirement.

I call these reasons indisputable, because the customers insist that these are hard requirements. Apps not meeting these requirements are out however useful and feature-rich they may be.

I have yet to meet a customer that has absolutely no SAAS technology in their companies.

That is absolutely true, but the customers I know do make differences between critical and non-critical apps. Since project and knowledge management store a lot of confidential and often mission-critical data, Atlassian should be flattered by the fact that these companies categorize Atlassian apps as critical, and therefore require them to be on-premise. Yet, Atlassian seems to think that these customers don't know about their own requirements or have no idea about cloud technologies. How arrogant.

I will let my customers know that you are ready to jump on a Zoom with them, but sorry to say that, I fear they will find it is just a waste of their time.

Like # people like this

I have yet to meet a customer that has absolutely no SAAS technology in their companies.

And? What does that have to do with any of their concerns? Was this a talking point that you really needed to burn off your list so you just stuck it in that response?

Having SaaS for our company doesn't mean everything needs to be SaaS. I honestly am not sure how else this can be spelled out to you - how some of your customers use your products differ than how others use it. You can have that nugget of information for free. Not everyone can go into your cloud for various reasons. They are telling you why, and you're telling them that they need to switch to an immature product and hope you can fulfill your roadmap.

Atlassian - get your horse out of the stable and ready for the journey you want us to take before trying to shoving us into that cart.

Like # people like this

I have yet to meet a customer that has absolutely no SAAS technology in their companies.

This statement is kind of ridiculous. It doesn't mean anything.

"I have yet to meet someone who has never traveled by airplane."

So what? Does this prove that airplane is the right means of transport for every travel? Definitely not! 

Your customers explain to you why they cannot or do not want to your SaaS in this case. Please take them seriously. 

Like # people like this

After communicating more with Atlassian, our company finally received a definite response:

I apologize, but our Cloud option will not be available as an option to satisfy your needs.

At least we recieved a definite answer and an official admission of how Atlassian is insincere when they state:

"these changes are in service of your organization’s long-term success"

"we believe we can address every concern a customer might have well before the end of server maintenance in 2024."

They care about facilitating teamwork but not for 'those' types of teams.
They believe in helping companies move to the cloud, but not 'those' types of companies.

Just like almost every SaaS company out there, they are looking the other way as companies in our industry are shut out from more and more professional working solutions.
trusted Atlassian. I personally have over $20,000 invested in their company.  But they lied to us.

If there is one thing I can give them credit for, it's for having to guts to admit defeat. To admit that they lied. To admit that they #@!%ed us just because our company happens to create art and games of people #@!%ing.

They believe that they can accept the insane risks of meeting the highest level of security standards demanded by organizations and governments all across the globe, but adult content is just too much of a risk.

Atlassian thought they could conquer the world, but the real world ended up being too much for them.

It's going to take a lot of work and a lot of changes for them to regain our trust. I sincerely hope that they can do it.

Like Taylor Huston likes this

As a small startup cloud migration will not happen for us.


- due to project sizes 2gb of storage total won't meet our needs (talking about a lot of projects here)

- the first non-free plan is way too expensive compared to our previously used starter license

- we don't want our data in the cloud due to liability concerns with our clients

- we prefer on premises


So our way of migration will be gitlab somewhat in 2022, which is free


Thanks for all the happy years but good bye

Christopher, I'm sorry to hear you go. Small startups are a perfect customer for our free cloud offerings.

What storage limits do you require?

What are the liability requirements you have for your customers?

@Cameron Deatsch 

- we prefer on premises

This, this right here. This exact statement and your response sums up why this has been so frustrating for a lot of us. Respect us, respect that we've looked plenty into your cloud and have decided it's not for us. Stop telling us we're wrong, because we are not wrong.

Can you please hold your customers to a high enough regard and not question their judgement?

Like # people like this

The best thing you could do while keeping the current pricing policy is making Server version opensource and free to use (at "as-is" basis). Atlassian did a great work of supporting newer JVM/Database versions, so even with minimal first-party support it would be a great solution for years to come. Is this path possible?

This is the way many software companies work now, with free basic opensource tier and enterprise-grade paid tier.

Even without plugin marketplace infrastructure, this approach will allow even more use cases for Server (for example, making certifications in restricted industries simpler), while keeping large enterprises coming to Data Center being sure that there are enough professionals in the market to support it.

Suggest an answer

Log in or Sign up to answer

Community Events

Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!

Find an event

Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!

Unfortunately there are no Community Events near you at the moment.

Host an event

You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local event. Learn more about Community Events

Events near you