zlacker

>>peteth+(OP)
> The fear is that these [AI] tools are allowing companies to create much of the software they need themselves.

AI-generated code still requires software engineers to build, test, debug, deploy, secure, monitor, be on-call, support, handle incidents, and so on. That's very expensive. It is much cheaper to pay a small monthly fee to a SaaS company.

>>latefo+G02
Atlassian tools for a client like mine (hundreds of employees) can easily cover the expense of internalizing it. It's Jira plus confluence mostly, it's not rocket science.

And that's just atlassian.

Start adding stuff that costs many many many yearly salaries (special software for managing inventories and warehouses) it starts making sense to prototype alternatives internally.

I came to the conclusion that if it's not Teams/SharePoint or the moat is on the extreme legal complexity side (e.g. payrolls), you can at least think of building an alternative that is good enough without needing to be perfect.

>>epolan+Rn2
jira premium is $15/mo/user for 300 users. you're saying $50k can cover developing the app inclusive of integrations, maintaining it, providing 24/7 service and 3 9s uptime (per the sla)? don't forget compliance and security. maybe the logic is everyone can be fired and replaced with agents?

>>louier+Mq2
Yes. $50k goes a long way outside of the Bay Area.

>>fragme+gy2
There is no way you would get anything close to as good as JIRA. Your best bet with that budget would be trying to integrate an existing open source on-prem solution (not sure what that alternative is for JIRA).

>>camden+OS2
Jira is crap, so the bar is low.