[Wilduck]

The irony is that a valid reason for in-house developers to not want to use an external product is concern about the long term support availabilty for that external project. You could make a case that this product shutting down is proof the in-house developers were right not to trust it.

I don't think that's totally fair in this case, since it seems they open sourced their software. But also, in general, I think NIH syndrom gets a bad rap. Sometimes a "worse" solution you control really is more reasonable compared to a technically superior solution made by an external company.

[eppp]

Ive been doing this for 20 years and I have had to do several major migrations due to vendors doing all sorts of stupid things. Millions of dollars and so so many hours completely unproductive because a commercial off the shelf product was 'cheaper' to buy initially.

[hobs]

Feeling it :) Currently in day two of an outage with almost no vendor response for my entire platform because it was "the cheaper option" :)

Every quarter during budgeting I have politely pointed out this inferior service costs us a lot of money and sucks at support as well, and every time its considered not a priority.

Today its a priority :)

[nailer]

This exactly happened for the same product a few years - a real time push company called Pusher folder (or killed its major product) and everyone using it had to migrate.