←back to thread

Local-first software (2019)

(www.inkandswitch.com)
863 points gasull | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.407s | source
Show context
the_snooze ◴[] No.44473511[source]
Anything with online dependencies will necessarily require ongoing upkeep and ongoing costs. If a system is not local-first (or ideally local-only), it’s not designed for long-term dependability.

Connected appliances and cars have got to be the stupidest bit of engineering from a practical standpoint.

replies(3): >>44473529 #>>44480397 #>>44492476 #
api ◴[] No.44473529[source]
The entire thing is because of subscription revenue.

It’s self reinforcing because those companies that get subscription revenue have both more revenue and higher valuations enabling more fund raising, causing them to beat out companies that do not follow this model. This is why local first software died.

replies(3): >>44474003 #>>44474072 #>>44475182 #
tikhonj ◴[] No.44474072[source]
I remember seeing somebody summarize this as "SaaS is a pricing model" or "SaaS is financialization" and it totally rings true. Compared to normal software pricing, a subscription gives you predictable recurring revenue and a natural sort of price discrimination (people who use your system more, pay more). It's also a psychological thing: folks got anchored on really low up-front prices for software, so paying $2000 for something up-front sounds crazy even if you use it daily for years, but paying $25/month feels reasonable. (See also how much people complain about paying $60 for video games which they play for thousands of hours!)

It's sad because the dynamics and incentives around clear, up-front prices seem generally better than SaaS (more user control, less lock-in), but almost all commercial software morphs into SaaS thanks to a mix of psychology, culture and market dynamics.

There are other advantages to having your software and data managed by somebody else, but they are far less determinative than structural and pricing factors. In a slightly different world, it's not hard to imagine relatively expensive software up-front that comes with a smaller, optional (perhaps even third-party!) subscription service for data storage and syncing. It's a shame that we do not live in that world.

replies(3): >>44474539 #>>44474602 #>>44475180 #
1. api ◴[] No.44474602[source]
SaaS is a business model. Cloud is DRM. If you run the software in the cloud it can't be pirated and there is perfect lock-in. Double if the data can't be exported.

Related: I've been incubating an idea for a while that open source, as it presently stands, is largely an ecosystem that exists in support of cloud SaaS. This is quite paradoxical because cloud SaaS is by far the least free model for software -- far, far less free than closed source commercial local software.

replies(1): >>44475234 #
2. seec ◴[] No.44475234[source]
Yes, this is the main reason for doing "cloud" I believe. Otherwise, it would make no sense for someone like Adobe to adopt this model, since the softwares still largely require to run locally for technical reasons.

It's the same thing as the subscriptions for movies like Netflix, except at least in the last case we can fight back with various means (and it's not a necessity).

The SaaS model is basically a perfect racketeering setup, I think it should be outlawed at least philosophically. There is no way business is not going to abuse that power and they have already shown as much...

I agree with your sentiment on Open Source. I think like many of these types of things, it lives in contradictions. In any case, Linux as it is today, couldn't exist without the big commercial players paying quite a bit to get it going.