I’ve had discussions with others professionally around this idea, but I’m curious to hear from others on their take. I’ll wait a bit before I share my stance. Feel free to share more if you land in one of the less definitive buckets.
Imagine a software product that is slightly better than current free OSS, 100% local-only, and offline alternatives. The software states it runs completely locally and offline, but it requires a free cloud account to function; this account also provides an optional cloud sync for your data.
I mean that’s it right there isn’t it? That’s the scam we’re all seeing everywhere right now. Give you the carrot, but YOU are the product. Selling your data and footprint while providing a ‘service’ - convenience isn’t worth ‘their’ end result imo.
Local only, no cloud connection, no telemetry that isn’t directly user facing. I’m planning on using tangled’s knots so you would need a DID to contribute, but you can make your own at home there too. The best software was always that binary that just did what you wanted and never asked for input otherwise.
imho selling my soul to Satan just to have a “a software product that is slightly better than current free OSS”, keyword slightly, is a bit of a hard sell.
I can start considering selling souls, firstborns or virgins only if the software is significantly better and can do things nothing else can do, and/or is massively faster or smarter, like it has a very real and big edge for a workflow I’m making money off of.
But even then eh, I’m not enthusiastic and I’d be preparing for the rugpull that will inevitably happen when the application moves all to the cloud, terminates the “”““lifetime””“”" license and asserts ownership over everything I produce with it (any resemblance with Adobe products is completely coincidental I swear)
We might all dislike them, but they are a step less bad that online only tools, like google docs or stadia gaming.
I am not an artist, but adobe/davinci products, still run locally but require an online authentication?
So, we use them a lot in a lot of fields.
Alternatives exist, like GOG for games, and other services for other fields, but the always internet connected apps, seem to be technically good, despite the always on holdback…
Really depends on what the online account is for. I don’t mind e.g. Google SSO to self-hosted service because that only serves AuthN, google isn’t getting any of the data that the services produce. That’s an online account I’ll accept. If at any part after login it doesn’t work if I yank the ethernet cable, then you can’t market it as “offline”.
Steam is an online platform with an explicit Offline mode in which I can play my single player games. That’s fine, but lots of people want the trust that comes from “local offline” branding and then exploit that trust sooner or later.
Here’s some context about discussions I’ve had, which is why I asked:
• Business with core product as open source software, “we should add a cloud login requirement for users to access this primary feature.”
• Business with product that claims it runs ‘fully offline and local’ requiring a cloud account, and account is used to monitor usage, and will charge if exceeding free tier’s usage limit; also doesn’t work without ability to phone home
I called out both as bad ideas. The first being the literal definition of enshittification, the latter being a “extract” not “provide” value.
I asked bc at both orgs, I seemed to be alone in my option. I know I’ll get a somewhat bias reply here, although not completely as ~40% didn’t side with what I would’ve picked. I know they full context gives a slightly different story than the prompt for the poll, but I was trying to be charitable and not inject my own bias. I appreciate everyone who voted and replied
You’re probably not alone but that others don’t have a spine / don’t want to stand up against something in fear that they’ll be a target.
When working for idiots (which is any company with a ‘board’ it seems): It sucks to want to genuinely do / be good at your work instead of just nodding your head and ‘doing’.
I’ll add: The last ‘Big company’ I worked for on their payroll and not as a contractor - I was ‘that guy’ that upset the system and made my ‘superior’ look like the idiot he was (if you’re reading this Rob, you’re the biggest fake POS I’ve ever met buddy), I said constantly, “Why ask us what we think when you already know what your going to do?” - I loved how much they hated me.
Definitely feel like I’m ‘that guy’ at many, if not all, places I’ve worked at. You’re right that it’s likely others don’t want to or don’t have the courage to stand up, and I don’t blame them (not all of them, some of them are definitely part of the problem tho). In my experience, people aren’t encouraged to speak up or push back at organizations. The avoidance of pushing back likely started to ensure there was cohesion to actually move things forward, but it seems to have devolved into the status quo for protecting egos, instead of an actual benefit for the organization.
For me, Steam feels like it’s in a different category. It’s a marketplace of sorts, and has other features like chat, communities, etc. The Steam account does gate usage of their marketplace, but are there free, no-account digital alternatives? GOG, AFAIK, requires an account too. The best way to get games without an account would be purchasing physical copies or downloading directly from a publisher (if they provide such an option).
I don’t know much about Davinici or the Adobe products, but from recollection, the Adobe products used to be a version license. You buy a version and you can use it for as long as it’s valid, but no updates. I suspect that when they switched to a subscription model, they were counting on their existing users accepting the new norm, since they were locked into the ecosystem already (just a guess).
Perhaps it’s splitting hairs, but I think the example I give is subtly different than your counterpoints (your counterpoints are good ones to make tho). It’s marketed as free and running locally, but still requires an account. I shared more context and details about why I created the poll, but that was my original pitch, plus there were equivalent free + no-account options available.
Using the example of Adobe, assuming there was a feature parity free and no-account need alternative, imagining yourself as having no preference to a given platform, what’s your default choice (ignoring all other factors like what’s considered industry standard)? I would suspect many would at least start with the no-account alternative, since the barrier to test was lower.
Fair point. Are you saying that even given that there’s at lease one no-account needed alternative, you’d still choose to go with the option that requires an account?
Makes sense. I suspect that a majority of people would weigh the benefits gained against the creation of another account, but that could also be overly generous too. I agree that claiming ‘offline’ can often end up getting abused. Although for me, ‘offline’ is acceptable if the core features still work while disconnected, if there are some features that don’t operate offline, I can accept that (for certain products).
I have spam email accounts for a reason. I don’t like it, but if the software is the only one on the market that will do what I need, then I have little choice.
In my experience “business” is happy to walk into all kinds of IMHO bad ideas. Proprietary format lock in, vendor lock in, SaaS lock in, needless dependencies on network services (like this local software that needs cloud account), convoluted usage based billing with no bill limits, terrible UX (but the CTO signed a 3 year deal so you are stuck with it).
If the leaders don’t really care you’re in for a hard time if you do care. It makes it hard, like I care about security and privacy, which makes for a lot of grimacing during a work week.
I voted “Maybe/It depends” because I really do think it depends, but for me that’s a pretty narrow window.
The one example that I can think off of the top of my head is Enpass. I don’t think applications like Obsidian, Steam, or Firefox qualify for your scenario.
Enpass though, I started using it because it promised to be an “offline” password manager, and that appealed to me when comparing it to options like Lastpass. It certainly does offer the ability to sync via the cloud, but you choose the cloud provider and it can be self hosted via Nextcloud. It can also sync via wifi sync without any cloud providers. It stores an encrypted copy of your vault on each device you sign in and sync your vault to. If your cloud location goes offline, you still have your local copy.
They do offer a monthly subscription plan, but I bought a lifetime license, so for me that account is just used to activate the application. The login doesn’t sync my configuration and my data stays local, or on the cloud provider of my choice (at least that’s what they claim).
I am currently considering self hosting Vaultwarden, but I need to actually weigh the pros and cons. If I find that Enpass is using my login details to do more than just activate the installed application, I’d likely accelerate that review and effort.
Is it unreasonable for devs to want to know who’s using their stuff? I don’t think so, no. Is it unreasonable to for devs to want to get paid for their work? Nope.
.. but .. numbers games breed numbers games, box tickers need more boxes to tick.
Once they start down the dashboard path, the company is measuring success rather than achieving it, employing people to maintain and feed the dashboard.
The big guy uses a great quote, ‘the future belongs to those that build value, not those who extract it.’
So, just ask what the company is paying people to do
I use that quote all the time. It’s like you said, momentum is a thing in business, so altering the course of things can be tricky. I certainly want to get paid, but I want to build/provide value, not try to extract it.
