←back to thread

Local-first software (2019)

(www.inkandswitch.com)
868 points gasull | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.257s | 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 #
flomo ◴[] No.44475180[source]
It's the missing middle. A manager can just expense $25/mo, while $2000 requires an approval process, which requires outside sales, which means it really costs at least $20,000.
replies(1): >>44475267 #
1. 3eb7988a1663 ◴[] No.44475267[source]
Ha! If only that were true. I gave up on my effort to buy a one year license for $25 after filling out too many TPS reports. Which is probably part of the design of the system.