[ElevenLathe]

The "skin in the game" argument is, IMO, not compelling. It is clearly possible to have stable software services delivered by separate Dev and Ops teams that communicate using a will defined software interface -- look at any app that uses Heroku or a similar PaaS.

But, as we know, useful software interfaces are difficult to define well and, once they exist, they tend to be the most inflexible part of a fast-changing system. It is always better (though of course more expensive) to control both sides of an interface for this reason.

The "skin in the game" argument elides this fundamental reason and substitutes one that implies all of this is the fault of lazy devs, which isn't (generally) true IME.

[dasil003]

This argument doesn't hold water. Both Heroku and teams that run apps on Heroku have their own on-call teams. Yes, you can build stable interfaces and separation of responsibilities between infra and business services, but someone still has to be responsible for the business services stability.

[ElevenLathe]

Right but I meant my point to be that the people on call don't have to be literally the same people developing the application code. In fact, they never have to communicate at all, because they can coordinate at arms-length with a well-defined software interface.

Edit: I missed the part where you say the Heroku customer has their own on-call team. IME this is not true. The whole reason to use a PaaS like this is to avoid having an Ops team. Sometimes orgs outgrow their PaaS and keep using it anyway, but this isn't necessary, only a historical artifact. These orgs would likely save more money and get a better result by going with normal IaaS or racking their own servers and, in fact, are probably actively switching to that model.