Atlassian is smaller than Microsoft.
We often pitch against solutions from Microsoft, IBM, SAP, Oracle, Adobe or Google. Compared to these companies the 5bn Dollar company Atlassian with its 2k employees is small and not yet as well known. Some companies think that this puts a risk on their decision for choosing an "underdog".
Microsoft is challenged in a lot of domains. And they lose out in many fields. We believe they lose out, when it comes to collaboration in big companies. Even if you can discuss about that, following a "Microsoft-strategy" is not smart today any more. Microsoft lost the game in too many areas: Browsers are Chrome, Firefox and Safari today. Smartphones are Android (Google) and iOS (Apple). Search is Google. Even Google Apps for Work is threatening Office 365 heavily.
Microsoft is a well respected and huge company that prevails big corps IT. But it is not a "standard strategy" that substitutes for everything.
This solution is not enterprise ready.
There are a lot of players in the Atlassian ecosystem. Atlassian itself and more than 300 Atlassian partners and over 2100 add-ons for their products. One add on in the Linchpin suite comes from a vendor in Budapest, Hungary. Since when do you buy core IT infrastructure and software from Hungary? Some people feel that the diverse set of offerings and service providers makes it difficult to create a streamlined, reliable solution that is truly enterprise-ready.
It is the long competition between Apple and Google in the smartphone business, that can teach us a lot here. Apple controls everything with their rigid approval process and their closed ecosystem that they fully control at will. Google made the Android OS open source and lets manufacturers like Samsung, HTC or Amazon even create own versions of the software with artificial limitations. Both have long proven to be enterprise ready and secure if deployed and used correctly.
Atlassian has a huge edge with their enourmous ecosystem and this is as beneficial for customers as the web itself. The internet is redundant with a lot of hubs and knots that can take over if one goes down. The Atlassian ecosystem reduces the lock-in effect and the dependency of companies dramatically. This is not a liability but an advantage.
We do not care about the budget and time.
Linchpin is a very cheap solution for bigger companies. Especially when you have more than 10k employees the advantages in license pricing are very high. If that is no argument or not important in your project, especially blue chip solutions (like Microsoft, IBM, ...) become more attractive.
Every company cares about budget and time. It is important not to waste energy, money and time of the company and its employees. Linchpin can be tested from A to Z easily online. For a small budget you can go for a prototype and have a "proof of concept" (POC). We can deploy the software in a huge organization in between 2 and 6 months. Our pricing is a fixed price with a delivery guarantee.
This solution is not mobile ready.
We have a "mobile first" strategy and your solution is not fully available as a native app yet. So we cannot consider you as a relevant vendor.
Although I would love to see that, most companies do not really live a "mobile first" strategy. Saying that is most likely wrong already. Understanding mobile also means understanding, that mobile has totally different use cases. It is not helpful to transfer each use case 1:1 from the desktop to mobile. Desktop is mainly about creating content. Mobile is about consumption and communication (messaging, liking, commenting, sharing). In the truly mobile domain Atlassian has one of the leading group chat apps called HipChat and dominates the market together with Slack. That is why Atlassian actually is one of the few vendors that are strong in the mobile area.
The one vendor that is really mobile-ready is Google. They have wide variety of mobile apps that are very mature and powerful. Their offering however is more of a complementary area to Atlassian's domain than a substitution.