4 ms·

Users don't want to host their own data. I think this has borne out time and time again where hosted options win out over self-hosting repeatedly.

nine_k 6y ago
This depends on the user; tech-savvy users may prefer a self-hosted version, especially if it installs in a few clicks. But they are outnumbered by IT-naive users whose only realistic option is the hosting by a vendor.
- m11a 6y ago
  > tech-savvy users may prefer a self-hosted version Not necessarily. I'd hate to self host stuff. It's a maintenance burden, time wasted getting stuff to work with all of its complexities, and once that's done you need to make sure it keeps working, that bills keep being paid, and you're responsible for drive failures, backups, missing a bill, etc... And that's despite my software and sysadmin experience. I don't think it has anything to do with "tech-savvy". Hosted is just the better option in almost all cases, especially at individual or small-medium scale. I actually think the converse to the typical self-hosted statement is true: only a small number of tech-savvy users like to self-host. They just happen to be a vocal minority.
anderspitman 6y ago
I think users don't like hosting their data using poor solutions. A lot of folks seem to be happy with products like Synology that just work. Self hosting leans toward simpler (and thus more reliable) software, lower latencies, and higher speeds, due to improved locality.
zimbatm 6y ago
Users want convenience. Hosted is usually more convenient to use (at least in the short term) as all the maintenance is taken care of transparently.
- hinkley 6y ago
  We could improve the convenience of self hosting. And we should. The pendulum always swings, we should start thinking about what we want it to look like, or somebody else will.
  - zimbatm 6y ago
    Hopefully. There is a big gap in funding for self hosting.

nine_k 6y ago

This depends on the user; tech-savvy users may prefer a self-hosted version, especially if it installs in a few clicks. But they are outnumbered by IT-naive users whose only realistic option is the hosting by a vendor.

m11a 6y ago
> tech-savvy users may prefer a self-hosted version Not necessarily. I'd hate to self host stuff. It's a maintenance burden, time wasted getting stuff to work with all of its complexities, and once that's done you need to make sure it keeps working, that bills keep being paid, and you're responsible for drive failures, backups, missing a bill, etc... And that's despite my software and sysadmin experience. I don't think it has anything to do with "tech-savvy". Hosted is just the better option in almost all cases, especially at individual or small-medium scale. I actually think the converse to the typical self-hosted statement is true: only a small number of tech-savvy users like to self-host. They just happen to be a vocal minority.

anderspitman 6y ago

I think users don't like hosting their data using poor solutions. A lot of folks seem to be happy with products like Synology that just work. Self hosting leans toward simpler (and thus more reliable) software, lower latencies, and higher speeds, due to improved locality.

zimbatm 6y ago

Users want convenience. Hosted is usually more convenient to use (at least in the short term) as all the maintenance is taken care of transparently.

hinkley 6y ago
We could improve the convenience of self hosting. And we should. The pendulum always swings, we should start thinking about what we want it to look like, or somebody else will.
- zimbatm 6y ago
  Hopefully. There is a big gap in funding for self hosting.