Can you please clarify something vitally important?
The document (archive link) contains the following disclaimer:
Hosted Services will be available at least 99.9% of the time measured on a per calendar month basis and is calculated by subtracting from 100% the percentage of 5-minute periods during the month in which the Hosted Services were unavailable to Customer (“Commitment”). The Hosted Services are unavailable if Customer’s authorized user cannot access and use material functions of the Hosted Services for a continuous period of five minutes or longer, excluding periods of scheduled or emergency maintenance (“Incident”).
There are 43,200 minutes in a month, assuming 30 days.
An uptime of 99.9% would imply 0.1% of downtime, or 43.2 minutes per month.
An uptime of 99.99% would imply 0.01% of downtime, or 4.32 minutes per month.
A 43 minute outage not caused by scheduled updates is not a great benchmark for a cloud service. By the same token, if the service experienced 94.9% uptime, or 5.1% downtime, this is an outage of 36 hours. How likely do you think a 50% service credit is going to appease a customer and keep them from considering alternatives to Jamf? The only fair thing to do at that point would be to send @deanhager out personally delivering gift baskets of fine Wisconsin cheeses, Minnesota bratwurst, and a 6-pack of New Glarus Spotted Cow to wash it down. :-)
The figures cited for a first-party cloud hosted service would give any senior IT officer great pause in considering whether Jamf is confident in its own cloud hosting abilities.
Surely you meant to offer "four nines" uptime guarantee, or 99.99%? That would be close to the 5 minutes cited in the guarantee.
Also, the post says "May 15, 2019" but the linked document was posted on Monday April 15.
I read that as "any outage under 5 minutes doesn't count against this SLA." Also not great for a cloud services situation. I have done better than this every single month I've run my own instance. There is literally no upside to going cloud.