The Trellists made Trello. And the Trellists are going to keep working on Trello at Atlassian. Atlassian understands that Trello is unique and beloved and they definitely do not want to mess that up.
Read this article that Jordan Novet wrote. I know seeing is believing and you will have to wait and see, but I agree with everything Jay Simons says in this interview.
To be fair I've been a part of 3 acquisitions and have seen this story play out tens of times with beloved software. It always starts out this way. "The original folks are going to run it, not the new company!" "Things will stay the same" yadda yadda yadda.
1-3 years down the road, it'll be a different story. It'll be unlikely that the executive team will stick around past whatever agreement they signed with Atlassian.
I'm skeptical. I've yet to see this work out with a company I worked at or followed (yes yes I know, Instagram but I never followed them so I wouldn't know how or if they've changed). I'm sure it can and has happened. But you have an uphill battle :)
Well I don't really use Trello, though I tried it for a while (wasn't my cup of tea). But the difference between WhatsApp and YouTube and Trello is that the latter is used by a different crowd than the former which is more conscious of and partial to their tools. Thus if Atlassian messed up Trello they'd certainly create lots of bias against the company as a whole in the Trello community, but that can't be said for WhatsApp or YouTube, where the majority of the users don't even care which company owns these services (I guess most wouldn't even know), let alone hating that company for changes to acquired products.
I think Atlassian does a good job of not killing off apps it acquires (anyone have examples?). They just rebrand them and smoosh them into their whole suite of stuff they've bought.
Years ago I was talking to a Melbourne dev who said they've made very little (Jira and Confluence I think?) and the rest of it they've just bought and rebranded?
Yahoo likes to kill apps and take devs, like Astrid Tasks.
All of them are Oracle now and Virtual Box is pretty good?
It really isn't. VirtualBox was always mediocre compared to VMWare, and ever since the Oracle acquisition, I haven't heard of any major new features or performance improvements coming out of the VirtualBox team. Though, given what Oracle has done to its other acquisitions, benign neglect is a pretty good outcome.
lol? VirtualBox has been maintaining its release cadence since the Oracle acquisition in 2010 (almost 7 years ago!), including 2 major-version releases. It seems to be one of the few parts of the Sun family that hasn't been mucked up yet. I keep waiting for Oracle to give it The Oracle Treatment(tm), but heretofore, that hasn't occurred. The VBox guys must have their cubicles hidden really well. ;)
If you want to see the "major new features" implemented, you need look no further than the changelog. [0]
And FWIW, I've tried VMWare Workstation several times and even own a copy of it, but VirtualBox has been and continues to be the most reliable, simple method of virtualization for me (and several of my colleagues). The VMWare drivers/tools are frequently broken by kernel upgrades, the interface is clunkier and more demanding (including requiring hosts to run a couple of background daemons; VBox operates fine on hosts with just the drivers installed), and the performance, while better in some areas, is much worse in others, making it a wash for general use.
Virtualbox... good? I don't think so at all, it's networking and disk IO performance is horrendous, as much as I dislike VMware - Fusion is miles ahead of VirtualBox in all ways IMO except price. But now we have Xhyve & friends which is truly fantastic.
It just really depends on whether the scale/revenue of the acquired is immediately and clearly accretive to the acquirer. WhatsApp and Waze were pretty far along that path (and their prices reflected it!). Younger companies are more vulnerable.
And the legacy seems to be a comment system that's impossibly hard to follow. Reply button implies some kind of threads but I just see disjointed fragmented comments that just end up in more confusion, and more worthless comments. I wish they'd pull comments from besides videos.
I still haven't gotten any assistance from Google after losing my YouTube account when my f#@!ing plus account (which I didn't even want) spawned another account from the gmail address I'd signed up before Google bought them.
Plus was the real turning point where I went from loving Google to tolerating them.
YouTube was used as leverage to boost Google+. They backed off soon enough to save things (or perhaps YouTube is just too big to kill with such a mistake) but it was badly messed up IMO.
Given that there were lots of companies that abandoned Window's phone, I'm not convinced it's related -- I suspect Waze would have abandoned it either way.
You know, the entire installed app economy has turned into a big mess.
Would you devote your resources to an Android or iOS app if it isn't backed by a service which is useful in and of itself?
What about desktop Windows apps? Every time I see others interact with a Windows 10 app, I feel like throwing up. Mac apps seem to be doing slightly better, but that might be because it is an inherently tiny market.
Now that everything has moved to the web, people are trying to outdo each other with the creepiest possible tracking analytics. If you wish to develop useful, paid software which is mostly unobtrusive to the users, I would say you are already about 5 years too late.
Truthfully, unless you are being acquired by an aggregator like berkshire hathaway, I don't get the "nothing will change attitude" you often see. Of course it will change. They bought you to change something (usually about them).
The number that stay truly autonomous is ... very very very low.
Exactly. No acquisition ever starts off with, "We're going to change a bunch of stuff as we assimilate this new company."
It's not hard to find "______ is being acquired by ________" headlines on HN, where everybody involved promises not to change anything, and then find the corresponding shutdown post on https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ sometime a few months later.
Unfortunately, even if Jira were really serious about not changing anything, it's not entirely up to them. No doubt there are some Trello employees who don't want to work for Jira, and a lot of them will eventually leave.
Even if everybody at Trello honestly believes it, in a few months it's not going to be their decision any more.
Exactly. No acquisition ever starts off with, "We're going to change a bunch
of stuff as we assimilate this new company."
What about FitBit's acquisition of Pebble? Fitbit was pretty clear that they were going to shut down pretty much everything that Pebble was doing, and fold the Pebble team into FitBit. More generally, don't pretty much all acqui-hires work this way?
Atlassian is trying to own the migration path here, IMO. Trello was never really meant to manage software products, and I've been part of two separate teams that moved from Trello to JIRA when a PM who wanted more enterprise-y management features came on board.
Fog Creek always pitched Trello as a general list app, not a bug tracker, and refused to add features that would've geared it specifically toward bug tracking. I would venture a guess that Fog Creek kind of accidentally shot FogzBugz in the foot with Trello.
My impression is that Atlassian sees Trello's userbase as a strong opportunity to upsell to the enterprise-style tooling in JIRA and recruit more people into the JIRA ecosystem. If this is indeed the value they see, then it wouldn't make sense to change anything about Trello's fundamentals. They'll probably just create a JIRA plugin and plaster JIRA ads all over the place.
I get where you're coming from but the guy above was straight up declaring Trello's death. Even with skepticism you can agree it's being too pessimistic too early.
And if it goes down a different path, there will be a hole in the market waiting for the next Trello and that's good too.
> there will be a hole in the market waiting for the next Trello and that's good too
Good for someone willing to take advantage of the market opportunity, maybe. But is it good for users that have to deal with their company churning from one enterprise to-do list to another?
Familiarity (or lack thereof) with software like Trello can be the difference between enjoying your day to day and finding it endlessly frustrating.
I've not been a part of acquisition but I've seen many from the outside, take the exame of Whatsapp, when they sold off to facebook they were like "we will never add calling to whatsapp, it will always focus on text messaging", " we care for privacy very much, never will we send your data" et al, less than one year after the acquisition, they do everything that they had promised not to do!
I was a longtime Slicehost user and while Rackspace eventually phased them out, they were not competitive with the new crop of VPS providers anyway. I was paying $70/mo for my slice. I don't remember the specs, but when they went away, I switched to a Linode that was about half the cost. (Linode has now also been outmoded for my uses, and I just have Vultr and DigitalOcean servers (+ 1 dedicated server in a rack somewhere) now).
The (Startup)ists made (Startup). And the (Startup)ists are going to
keep working on (Startup) at (Acq. Company). (Acq. Company) understands
that (Startup) is unique and beloved and they definitely do not
want to mess that up.
I'm sure you made quite a large sum of money off of this deal, but Atlassian doesn't have a great track record of purchasing non-Atlassian products and not messing them up.
just wanted to address my hugest complaint about the Atlassian suite, in the hope someone here can use it for improvement: please unify the administrative UI/UX of JIRA and Confluence (and the other tools). Stuff is named differently, and placed in different positions. Even as a sys-op, it is not always possible to claim access rights to a space that another administrator created. And why does Confluence use JIRA Crowd for LDAP authentication?
What about HipChat don't you like? I know it can be buggy at times, but from a strictly functional perspective, I feel like it's ok, or at least sufficient for me.
"Barely sufficient to stop people from switching to Slack" seems to be Atlassian's target.
Atlassian abandoned HipChat's bug tracker, and put up a fresh JIRA that they discourage you from using at several steps. That's one way to get the bug count down without fixing any bugs.
I've logged a number of tickets against their product, their solution seems most frequently to be "we're merging this with another ticket that's about 50% related, fixing some other issue, then closing this ticket and opening another one for other issues since merged into this ticket, elsewhere." If you follow the ticket trail around long enough, you may see your issue fixed, but I haven't been that dedicated yet. Their support process is certainly pretty crappy.
As an enterprise user: Just about everything to do with LDAP/AD integration. Disabling an AD user from the app and re-enabling them later converts their account into a local account, for one. If you have it connected to a Crowd server, and the Crowd server loses connection with its directory, it returns an empty user list to Hipchat, resulting in EVERY USER ACCOUNT BEING DISABLED. And as we just established, when it comes back, Hipchat sets up the users as new.
I still remember, and have nightmares about, the day ~300 users lost all private chats, private room membership, and chat history, all because of braindead design.
Hipchat is not my favorite atlassian product. The only reason they have any traction whatsoever is because Slack doesn't offer a behind the firewall product.
I'll mention one point: editing your sent messages sucks. Afaik, using s/foo/bar is the only way in the Linux client. If I mess up the /code command (very easy to do) the. Fixing it is such a pita that I might as well not bother.
Why can't HipChat message editing be as easy as Skype's? If HipChat is at all targeted for devs, why is pasting/sharing code a pita? Where is bold/italics on linux? Your own hyperlinks (instead of pasting raw urls?
I only use HipChat because the alternatives at my company are worse. Even IRC seems better at this point.
We switched to Discord and are pretty happy. Path we took was: HipChat (buggy, server outages) -> Slack (resource hog) -> Discord (gamer focused, but works well).
No doubt they'll sell someday though so w/e. Temporary / replaceable is the new norm for productivity tools. Beware lock-in! Might end up back on IRC next.
It is okay on my Mac (except ugly and slow as molasses), but my Windows coworkers have been complaining about crashes, HiDPI problems and missed notifications for ages.
The editing function is embarrassingly bad. I get it, I've been on IRC when Perl was cool, but I can't believe they're shipping that. I don't think I've seen a non-programmer use it, ever.
I've also never felt so unwelcome in a bug reporter as in HipChat's. It really reminded me that Atlassian sells to suits, not to users.
Having recently switched from a workplace that used Slack to one that uses Hipchat, my first answer is "everything". It's less reliable, and reliability is my number one desire in a communications tool. And there are just so many little UI and UX details that Slack gets right that it's a pleasure to use, whereas Hipchat is generally an irritation and a disappointment for me.
I guess one way to explain it is that Hipchat feels like an enterprise product, and Slack feels like a consumer product. The difference being that enterprise products get used because some high-level person says, "Lo, all my vassals shall now use Hipchat." Which means that user experience is secondary. Whereas consumer software has to earn each user, meaning that it works harder to please and support those users.
This is actually a great description of Trello v. JIRA, as well. Trello may not have the burndown charts, but what it does have is dead-simple list management, and it turns out that's what's most effective for managing tasks.
JIRA's BDUF approach to ticketing/bug tracking pleases middle managers whose job is to spend all day clicking around arcane interfaces and finding a way to generate a report that shows their team is highly productive, but it's painful for actual doers to get in there and move stuff around, which means it rarely gets done, which means that the tracking is not very reliable, which means that the value of the bug tracker is dubious. The most important feature any bug tracker can have is that it's low-friction enough that most people will actually use it.
JIRA has tried various things to make this less onerous, including GreenHopper/swimlanes, an attempt to remake JIRA into a Trello-like drag-and-drop interface, but it just never seems to click the same way. For example, today, when I tried to move a ticket in JIRA from the "New" swimlane to the "Done" swimlane, I got a "WORKFLOW EXCEPTION".
What's funnier, in an attempt to make things easier Atlassian is alienating power users. I liked Confluence's mix of html and their own markup well enough to write all my pages that way. Then an update hit and WYSISWYG was pushed down everyone's throats hard. To the point where you had to jump through many hoops to use even a limited subset of the markup that was previously available.
Product managers need to learn a simple lesson: if a user wants to use power user features then you should let them because there's a good chance they know what they are doing.
Same here. I'd written a Markdown-to-Confluence converter so that I could use a local toolchain to autogenerate project documentation. It worked brilliantly until I came in one Monday and found that the editing mode I'd used to upload my documents was gone. On purpose. For good. I invented some profanities that day.
Not sure if you're playing dumb, but Confluence is a wiki. When I was using it, it was much better than any other I've tried (with or without live view). People at my company seemed to gravitate towards Google Docs when that came around--which is much better for creating and updating content, but isn't as good about searchability, linkability, versioning, or pulling docstrings from code.
At that same company, we switched to Jira from 6 or 7 different ticketing systems (a mix of in-house and third party systems split up by department). It was a herculean effort to transition, but the result was much better than any of the individual ticketing systems with the huge benefit of just opening a ticket anywhere and moving it to where it needs to go while preserving the history.
Now the cons I've seen are; I have no idea how much it costs and it seems to require a small to large team to manage and deploy it for maximum usefulness. For ad hoc deploys I've heard/seen performance issues if the server isn't beefy or configured correctly and the UI can be inscrutable if users are just dropped into the default. That's about (the best case scenario of) what I expect for enterprise software, though.
I have used GitHub Enterprise and haven't used BitBucket. I might not be using it correctly, but I don't see what's so great about GitHub Enterprise (especially for the cost). We still have to use a separate ticketing system for non-project related things (same with documentation).
I've used different ticketing systems since leaving the place that used Jira/Confluence, but have been disappointed at what they were using and what else I could find out there. What have you found out there that has worked better?
Do you have any specific criticism or alternatives to Confluence? I get that you're probably venting, but I'm honestly interested in alternatives and just calling it "rubbish" or "awful" isn't useful in any way.
I like Trello, I use it all the time for personal projects, but I just don't see it scaling for large groups. I was surprised to see Unreal Engine using it[1] even if they're only using it to communicate their roadmap (and using something else internally). I thought using Trello was creative and interesting, but I have trouble actually finding and following things.
I use YouTrack at my current job. I guess it works fine for our needs, but it feels clunky and crippled compared to Jira. I'm still using 6.5 (looking to upgrade to 7), am administering it myself, and haven't read too much of the docs, but was surprised it couldn't do some things I expected when I've tried to customize it.
I would never say Github is superior to Bitbucket. I haven't checked if they have changed the rules, but on the startup I was working on, Bitbucket provided superior value by far. They allowed free private repos for teams of up to 5 users. After 6 months we ended up paying for the basic plan to accomodate about 10 users.
I am mostly used to command line Git during my daily routine, but the designer/manager was happily using Sourcetree. But as far as some products that are kind of worthless, yeah Hipchat would be one. You are way better off using Slack or even WeChat mobile/desktop app (if you are in China)
Until recently I would've said there wasn't at all much difference between Github and Bitbucket (aside from Github being the de facto home for open source).
However, I'd now argue that Github is significantly better value than Bitbucket for projects, rather than code. By that I mean, Bitbucket is just a component in the greater Atlasssian ecosystem, so it's not a huge priority to add and improve upon project management tools, as you're encouraged to use JIRA, Confluence etc. Even simple things like Bitbucket's Markdown README's not supporting HTML (in particular anchors for same page links) makes the project organisation experience a whole lot less polished.
Where Github shine these days is that they offer a pretty cohesive experience for an entire project's management. Code reviews have come a long way, as have issues and pull requests in general. More recently they've added support for Projects, which for the most part is a Trello clone with built-in integration into Github's issue tracker. Free hosting of Jekyll websites, previews and diffs for all sorts of non-text file formats etc. really put Github in front. Combine this all with the recent change to bill per user rather than per repo (which provides huge savings for small teams) and I don't at all see how Bitbucket are supposed to compete.
I still use Trello for management of clients' projects simply because my clients don't care about the code. However, I can definitely see myself transitioning entirely to Github Projects and the Github issue tracker in the near future.
Frankly, Trello did really well out of this deal from Atlassian. I know Trello have a lot of users, but I'm a bit doubtful about their ability to generate significant funds (paid stickers...?) With Github Projects maturing Trello were likely to lose a lot of users from the tech industry. Atlassian and Trello actually seem like a perfect fit, so it's a saving grace for Trello who couldn't have timed the acquisition better.
> the UX of Github makes it worth the extra expense.
Github UX is weird. It looks nice, and there's lots of nice functionality. But it often takes lots of rummaging to find the things I need, unless I do them every week. Bitbucket and Gitlab seem to be laid out better. Github is the only site I use regularly where I need to refer to notes.
Bitbucket is better for companies than Github, though of course Github is supreme for open source collaboration. Github has improved recently, but Bitbucket had things like better user management more suitable for companies, and didn't have utterly brainless things like not allowing two repos to use the same deployment key (and deploy keys had full write access!). So everyone ended up making a 'fake human account' for their buildservers, which is Just One More Thing To Manage.
As for ticketing systems, they all suck. All of them. Even Trello. The basic problem is that the amount of information you need to put into a ticket in order to be reasonably useful is more than the users are (time-)comfortable providing. No ticketing software will solve that.
My major problem with Atlassian, though, is the licensing subsystem. It sucks hard. Getting support for it sucks. You can have the account that owns a license, and still be unable to access parts of your own account. They have support for multiple contacts, but only the first one receives relevant mail. The owner of the license can't control the order of the contacts, the contacts themselves have to log in and move themselves to that first position (no potential for abuse there!). Getting support through their support wizard process regarding licensing is painful. Ugh, they need to flog whomever designed that setup... I get the feeling that they used to work for the Windows licensing team....
Github has nothing that comes near what Jira offers. Comparing them is like comparing a car to motorcycle factory. Sure they both deal with some comparable things, but the car gets me from A to B. The motorcycle factory cannot do anything that comes near it for me.
I infinitely prefer BitBucket to GitHub. I guess GitHub is great if you are working on public or open source projects, but BitBucket seems to be much better at handling internal (private) projects to me.
Their lack of popularity also seems to translate to a lower attack profile, so I feel that my private projects are safer on BB than GH.
I've evaluated many issue trackers too, and none of them seem to come close to Jira. Yes it is slow, but the depth of features (and plugins) are great, and BitBucket works seamlessly with it.
David Karp (as just one example) said virtually the exact same thing re: Yahoo! acquisition.
Don't be that guy and spin a Jobs-esque reality distortion field.
If things were so perfect to begin with at Trello, you wouldn't be selling. The fact that you did indicates something needed changing.
You hope things won't change for the worse, as do your users, but assuring people that won't happen makes about as much since as guaranteeing you have the winning ticket for next week's lottery.
Congrats! However, I'm still pouring out a little wine on the ground for my fallen homies who died a slow death from being Jira'd and Bitbucketed and Confluenced to the point that their will to live was crushed.
Being the anti-Jira is what made Trello great. If feels like Luke Skywalker just got bought by the Dark Side while claiming that nothing will change -- I'm still with the rebels.
I feel like I'm the only one that likes Jira more than Trello. I started on Trello, then moved to a company that uses Jira, and couldn't be happier. It's just so functional. Why does everyone hate on it?
Personally, I hate it because it is too functional.
It has eight zillion features, all of them overlapping. It has so many fields, dimensions, views, and reports that I despair of ever getting a setup that usefully matches an actual workflow. The point of a work tracking system is to bring everybody together, but I regularly see people dealing with Jira by having their own separate tracking methods: docs, emails, spreadsheets, sticky notes on the wall.
I like Trello better because it's more straightforward. Less complexity means less chaos and an easier time getting a workflow representation that matches actual workflow.
But personally, I like things that are more straightforward still. E.g., my last company ran almost entirely on index cards, and we were very happy with that:
Yes, the same here, I came into a company with JIRA set up like a trello board, and all this awesome integration (stuff gets moved from "in progress" to "code review" automatically on a PR on that feature branch) and I got to work on top of the shoulders of giants.
I think this works only if your process is standardized across your company. Which I think is generally a terrible mistake in software, because a) team needs can differ, and b) you can't improve process unless the whole company changes at once.
I agree with you, but I suspect that your experience with Jira/Confluence as a developer will depend on the quality of your project and management team. If your PM team use it as a way to distribute their work down to developers, then Jira will quickly become one of the litany of things that you hate. Meanwhile, if it's used well, it can vastly reduce the burden of upwards communication in a way that Trello never will.
In other words, like most enterprise software, the experience is highly dependent on how well it's implemented.
Strongly agree. JIRA can be made to work a lot of different ways, and by allowing managers to restrict the workflow in various ways they can use it to enforce a lot of cumbersome process.
Alternately, JIRA as a team board, particularly with remote teams, can be pretty great if you take the time to set it up so that it works for the team (rather than just for the managers or PMs). It can be no more (or at least not much more) cumbersome than Trello, but has a lot of features that Trello lacks.
Bear in mind that Jira is hugely customizable. So, saying "I use Jira" is more like saying "I drive a Ford" than like saying "I drive a Mustang."
Your experience will depend on the plugins you've installed, how you've configured custom fields and workflows, your org's SSO policies, the hardware you're deploying it to and how well you keep it up to date (if you're deploying on-prem), etc.
"Customizable" is a two-edged sword. The ultimate in customizable software is an assembler - you can configure it to perform the function of literally any software possible! But its utility at solving any fixed problem is very low.
The purpose of software is to specialize hardware to perform a required function. The more configuration is required to do this, the less overall value the software provides for that function.
As a software designer your job is to maximize the sum of that value across all functions that you support. As a software consumer, though, you just want the least possible configuration to perform your required function.
Trello is way easier to use though, and free to boot with paid extras. It's kind of like PHP vs Ruby on Rails all over again, where PHP is old and customizable, with RoR you get a cookie cutter workflow that is an industry standard, so people tend to gravitate towards that. Well, that and the fact that some people seem to be allergic to semicolons and C-style function calls :-P
Truth is both tools are just fine. The rest is just people defending their choice as the superior way of doing things.
This is the same thing that is said with every acquisition. It's basically boilerplate at this point. A better vector is how the parent product is doing, and currently, Jira is too bloated and swiss army knife in approach that it can't innovate or do anything well anymore. This bodes poorly for Trello and comes off as a play to funnel their users into Jira after they rip the basic superficial look and functionality into Jira as an update to its agile board, and kill the standalone product.
We will continue to support integrations with all kinds of other tools (regardless of the fact that they may compete with some other Atlassian product). Let the people use the tools they want to use - if they don't want to use your tool, then make a better tool.
I heard the same thing from Microsoft about Sunrise, but here I am still waiting for many features from Sunrise to get implemented into Outlook. Of course they also said they wouldn't get rid of Sunrise until all the features were implemented. That of course was a lie.
tl;dr: mhp, since you're active in this thread, how can I quickly get in touch with you?
Background:
I didn't find a competing product a good match for how I tried to use it, so I pitched that competition (your closest direct competition) on specific improvements (that they should make) but they didn't see my vision. (I was in touch with the CEO and exchanged a few messages back and forth.)
-> Do you have an email address I can forward the same thing to you to?
if you want to after reviewing my forwards you can reply by email. You can also reach out to me at my email in my profile. At the moment I don't use either Trello or them, anymore. (But I do use Atlassian products actually, which as you correctly state in this thread, are orthogonal.)
Thanks - I'd love to use specifically Trello products in the future.
-
EDIT: Why would anyone downvote this? (Let alone 2 people now.) I didn't have trouble getting in touch with the competition... Since mhp is active in this thread I don't see the harm of asking. I could probably find it out myself but I'm not going to waste any more time on this, since it was a waste of time with the other CEO.
Read this article that Jordan Novet wrote. I know seeing is believing and you will have to wait and see, but I agree with everything Jay Simons says in this interview.
"During the interview, Simons took time to assure me that Atlassian wouldn’t ruin Trello." http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/09/atlassian-is-buying-my-bel...
(disclaimer: I'm the Trello ceo)