[jdvh]

Both "everything in the cloud" and "everything local" have their obvious technical advantages, and I think they are mostly well understood. What really drives the swing of the pendulum are the business incentives.

Is the goal to sell mainframes? Then tell customers than thin clients powered by a mainframe allow for easy collaboration, centralized backups and administration, and lower total cost of ownership.

Do you want recurring SaaS revenue? Then tell customers that they don't want the hassle of maintaining a complicated server architecture, that security updates mean servers need constant maintenance, and that integrating with many 3rd party SaaS apps makes cloud hosting the logical choice.

We're currently working on an Local First (and E2EE) app that syncs with CRDTs. The server has been reduced to a single go executable that more or less broadcasts the mutation messages to the different clients when they come online. The tech is very cool and it's what we think makes the most sense for the user. But what we've also realized is that by architecting our software like this we have torpedoed our business model. Nobody is going to pay $25 per user per seat per month when it's obvious that the app runs locally and not that much is happening on the server side.

Local First, Forever is good for the user. Open data formats are good for the user. Being able to self-host is good for the user. But I suspect it will be very difficult to make software like this profitably. Adobe's stock went 20x after they adopted a per seat subscription model. This Local First trend, if it is here to stay (and I hope it will be) might destroy a lot of SaaS business models.