That would seem to be a fairly deep architectural flaw. Namely, that (roughly speaking) all users of the basecamp server experience performance and reliability roughly equal to that of those users experiencing the worst performance and reliability at any given moment. The guys who depend on the service for $2^N value per day are in the same boat as those who depend on it as those who depend on it for $2^(N-K) value. Each group that depends on it for $2^N value CAN NOT differentiate themselves, reliability, from their competitors who also rely on it for $2^N value.<p>That's old news, really. It's well known that that's a problem with SaS, centralization, and applications without competition. It's well known that it would be fixed by letting basecamp users install and run the system on servers under their own control with full software freedom over the thing (trading, probably, a little bit less reliability for each customer against faster recoveries for most and no "global outages" and the ability to invest in hardening the infrastructure for a competitive advantage).... it's just interesting to see those theoretical defects confirmed in practice.
Why don't they just come clean and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused me?<p>Edit: Sorry, I know HN doesn't encourage one-liners and jokes, but I couldn't resist this one... I guess you had to be at Startup School to appreciate it.