I'm glad we have a self-hosted Gitlab. Sure you need to do a bit of setup and configuration, but it's worth in the long run.
Oh and because cloud forces continuous payment whereas prior many customers simply bought a one year license and went on without renewing support.
Atlassian's docker images are similarly easy to use, but with everything Atlassian you have a veritable ecosystem of plugins of which almost none are open source so you are out of luck if there are incompatibilities.
I've had experiences where devops minded people I've worked with have wanted to self-host services such as Bitwarden. Sure, it will be cheaper and you will have noone to blame but yourself, but once things go bad they go really bad. It's also another thing to keep eyes on.
I guess similar argument could also be extended to self-hosted clouds. Seems like it could take away a lot of focus and energy from working on the product itself.
No. You update it on patch day (or when a big CVE comes out that you are actually impacted by) and know exactly what goes wrong and when. If you can't solve it, you roll back. When Github (or a part of it) goes down, you know nothing and with persistent issues there's no way to solve it either.
A company of the size where "but we have to scale" is an actual issue should self-host. A SaaS solution is a risk that you cannot mitigate.
Self-hosting inherently mitigates that problem because you now need to support less than 0.1% of the load of the worldwide service.
It also puts you in control of maintenance and updates - you can choose to make changes outside of business hours so that nobody is affected if you screw up. Developers at SaaS services can't easily do that because it's always business hours in some parts of the world, and may not be motivated to do it anyway even if it was possible with some effort.