3 ms·

any marginally successful "local-first" app is going to go and raise $10m in vc, switch to software as a service, and add an enterprise mode that requires user

any marginally successful "local-first" app is going to go and raise $10m in vc, switch to software as a service, and add an enterprise mode that requires user permissions and data access to be managed on the server

LeftHandPath 7y ago
Sure, any one company probably will - but there’s a whole market. As soon as that one company abandons the local-first model, a gap opens, which will (usually, eventually) be filled by a new company offering local-first until that new company does the same. As long as the companies don’t band together and agree to end it, there should be a company offering that model somewhere somehow.
- mwilcox 7y ago
  Even in the situation I described, the original company would leave the free / client side version on the site as free marketing. This is the standard today for enterprise-monetised open source software. Solving this problem isn't about being local-first. It's about being local-last. You have to be able to make more money by selling a software license than you make by selling equity and chasing user acquisition and retention. Then we'll see people waking up to the fact that all this proprietary data is a liability and subscriptions are golden handcuffs and people will finally get back to making real software again
rapsey 7y ago
Because local-first is not a viable business model compared to the cloud. Software goes where the money is.
toomim 7y ago
That's why we need to add local-first features into HTTP itself. I've been doing some work on it over the last few days: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-toomim-httpbis-braid-http-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-toomim-httpbis-b...
0xCMP 7y ago
I don't see what's wrong with that. Local First really just means distributed, fault tolerant, and eventually consistent but designed for user devices instead of a cloud "scale" service. Why couldn't an enterprise run a "device" (a server) which others can easily sync to ("sync.enterprise.com") and which also only allows authorized users to access data which they're allowed to access? Maybe using Macaroons or something and devices can still sync locally via Bluetooth, Wifi, or whatever. Now you have a full back up of everything on that server which IT could now more easily ensure it backed up, secured, and etc. Not to mention the same idea could be used by a normal person just running a NAS at home or a server in DO/AWS/GCS/etc.

LeftHandPath 7y ago

Sure, any one company probably will - but there’s a whole market. As soon as that one company abandons the local-first model, a gap opens, which will (usually, eventually) be filled by a new company offering local-first until that new company does the same. As long as the companies don’t band together and agree to end it, there should be a company offering that model somewhere somehow.

mwilcox 7y ago
Even in the situation I described, the original company would leave the free / client side version on the site as free marketing. This is the standard today for enterprise-monetised open source software. Solving this problem isn't about being local-first. It's about being local-last. You have to be able to make more money by selling a software license than you make by selling equity and chasing user acquisition and retention. Then we'll see people waking up to the fact that all this proprietary data is a liability and subscriptions are golden handcuffs and people will finally get back to making real software again

rapsey 7y ago

Because local-first is not a viable business model compared to the cloud. Software goes where the money is.

toomim 7y ago

That's why we need to add local-first features into HTTP itself. I've been doing some work on it over the last few days: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-toomim-httpbis-braid-http-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-toomim-httpbis-b...

0xCMP 7y ago

I don't see what's wrong with that. Local First really just means distributed, fault tolerant, and eventually consistent but designed for user devices instead of a cloud "scale" service. Why couldn't an enterprise run a "device" (a server) which others can easily sync to ("sync.enterprise.com") and which also only allows authorized users to access data which they're allowed to access? Maybe using Macaroons or something and devices can still sync locally via Bluetooth, Wifi, or whatever. Now you have a full back up of everything on that server which IT could now more easily ensure it backed up, secured, and etc. Not to mention the same idea could be used by a normal person just running a NAS at home or a server in DO/AWS/GCS/etc.