Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

marcobambini.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 494 posts

Re: Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

#351

Post by LanceH »

Aurornis wrote: post #311
crazygringo wrote: post #273

> The Solution: CRDTs. The right approach is CRDTs (Conflict-Free Replicated Data Types)... This means you can apply messages in any order, even multiple times, and every device will still converge to the same state. This is very much "draw the rest of the owl". Creating a CRDT model for your data that matches intuitive user expectations and obeys consistent business logic is... not for the faint of heart. Also remem…

Almost every time I see CRDTs mentioned it’s used as a magic device that makes conflicts disappear. The details, of course, are not mentioned. Technically an algorithm that lets the last writer win is a CRDT because there is no conflict. Making a true system that automatically merges data while respecting user intent and expectations can be an extremely hard problem for anything complex like text. Another problem is…

The details appear to be not giving a damn about changes to data. I personally wouldn't describe that as "converging". As it says, this is "Last Write Wins", which is great if the last writer is always correct.

"If it’s older → ignore" -- yea, I guess that's a solution but I would really have to look for the problem.

I've gone down this road and considered github (or similar) as the backing database. In the end, I just don't have an answer that isn't specific to nearly every field that might be entered. A notes field might be appended. First in might be important, or last in (if it can be trusted as correct). Usually it's something like, "which of these two did you meant to capture?"

Re: Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

#352

Post by Eisenstein »

jonahx wrote: post #329
Eisenstein wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you say 'basic economics' but actually mean 'ideal free market'. Economics is the science of economies, which do not have to be free or market based. The problem with people's basic understanding of free markets is that it is heavily simplified. We are looking at it from the perspective of 'what if human nature wasn't ever a problem, everyone was always perfectly rational, and everyone had all of the informat…

You've made a general argument that shows not all theoretical economic theories about free markets can be trusted. Fair enough. But my claim is much narrower. It merely relies on the love of money of real people in our current economy, and the premise that there is enough information flow that, if people cared, they would find and pay for products that don't screw their privacy, control, etc. I think both those premi…

So you are saying that because people are being screwed in the current market that is undeniable proof that people are OK with being screwed by the market?

If I misunderstand you please correct me.

If that is what you contend, then you have no addressed whether or not the market allows them to do otherwise. You take for granted that the market is free and that people are willingly choosing this outcome with perfect knowledge and without any incentives or forces which would compel them to act despite not wanting to be screwed. For instance, if you do not have bargaining power with a company over your contract, you have no choice but to accept it. Can you enter into negotiations before agreeing to a EULA?

There are forces that are not free market forces which constrain actions, there is human tendency to prioritize immediate needs over long term benefits, etc which all play a role.

The fact that:

1. The market exists 2. We have a conception of how the market should work in an ideal 3. People act in a certain way

do not all combine to make it true that 'people prefer it this way'.

That's the point I am making in counter to your assertion.

Re: Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

#354

Post by pabs3 »

Archelaos wrote: post #319
pkaye wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google maps (on my Android) actually has offline maps for a while now but you have to manually select the region. And you can cache multiple regions at once. I've used it in the past when driving to national parks and remote areas with no phone network in some spots.

I can recommend organic maps: https://organicmaps.app The quality of the maps depends on the region, though. But for me it is typically good enough. I not only like the local maps, but also that I can save waypoints locally. And I can contribute things like points of interest to Open Street Map directly via the app. In my opinion, the biggest disadvantage is that there is no traffic information.

Might be better to switch to the CoMaps fork:

https://www.comaps.app/news/2025-07-03/Announcing-Navigate-w...

Re: Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

#355

Post by bmm6o »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #336
Aurornis wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every time I see CRDTs mentioned it’s used as a magic device that makes conflicts disappear. The details, of course, are not mentioned. Technically an algorithm that lets the last writer win is a CRDT because there is no conflict. Making a true system that automatically merges data while respecting user intent and expectations can be an extremely hard problem for anything complex like text. Another problem is…

I’ve never really thought about this - how does Outlook handle this? Has anyone received a “sorry, that room you reserved actually wasn’t available; talk to this other dude who reserved it too” message after reserving a meeting room? Or does it just double book the room? Or is there a global lock on any transaction affecting a meeting room, so only one goes through? (Feels like it doesn’t scale)

Exchange server accepts or rejects meeting requests. There's no offline room reservation so it's pretty simple.

Re: Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

#356

Post by rbits »

b_e_n_t_o_n wrote: post #283
crazygringo wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context should be clear that this is talking exclusively about apps that store their data in the cloud. Local-first here means starting with a local data model that syncs to the cloud from the start, rather than an app that only works online.

What are some examples of popular apps that do this which aren't web apps, and could feasibly work offline? Every native app I use is local-first. Eg. Photoshop, Blender, Figma, Xcode, Zed, Kitty, Affinity Photo/Designer, Notes, Music, Calendar, Messenger, Maps, Email, etc.

Notion is a big one. I tried it out but didn't end up using it because it doesn't work offline.

(I know you said not web apps, but it does have a desktop version)

Re: Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

#358

Post by canadiantim »

czx111331 wrote: post #100

I believe that in the right contexts—specifically where eventual consistency is acceptable—the local-first paradigm is highly valuable and will gradually become mainstream. A major factor limiting adoption today is that existing local-first solutions are incomplete: when building such applications, developers must handle many problems that are trivial under strong-consistency or traditional models. This raises the le…

Loro is very cool. I'm currently testing out building with it. Hadn't seen loro-mirror before, looks very nice too. Is loro-mirror supposed to be used with rich text editors like prosemirror, etc.?

Thanks for your great work with loro

Re: Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

#359

Post by willtemperley »

Finding high quality libraries that are suitable for desktop / mobile distribution is currently very difficult.

I'd like to use DuckDB to remotely query Parquet. Unfortunately I can't use it in an iOS app because I'd have to work around the dynamic loading of extensions and bundle OpenSSL to support Httpfs in a static build. I'm building my own library instead.

That's just one example. I'd like to use certain LGPL licensed libraries but I can't because the legal risks are too high, as is the cognitive load in dealing with license uncertainty.

Neither of these things are an issue for web-apps.

I think the economics for local-first software could really work out for businesses that use significant compute. Cloud-compute is not cheap and comes with significant financial tail-risk.

Re: Why haven't local-first apps become popular?

#360

Post by jonahx »

Eisenstein wrote: post #352
jonahx wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've made a general argument that shows not all theoretical economic theories about free markets can be trusted. Fair enough. But my claim is much narrower. It merely relies on the love of money of real people in our current economy, and the premise that there is enough information flow that, if people cared, they would find and pay for products that don't screw their privacy, control, etc. I think both those premi…

So you are saying that because people are being screwed in the current market that is undeniable proof that people are OK with being screwed by the market? If I misunderstand you please correct me. If that is what you contend, then you have no addressed whether or not the market allows them to do otherwise. You take for granted that the market is free and that people are willingly choosing this outcome with perfect k…

You are making all these theoretical points... do you doubt that people are demonstrably lazy and willing to give up their privacy and control for free or cheap or convenient stuff? I don't see how this is even a contentious point to make.

You're bringing up all these theoretical counterpoints that either obviously don't apply, or only apply very partially. There are many local only, FOSS options available for every type of software, right now, many free, for people that care about privacy and control in their computing. They generally have tiny market share. If they were made even more convenient, I don't believe the impact would be substantial. By that I mean stuff like brand recognition, what friends are using, and so on would still be more important decision factors than privacy/control features.

This is a people problem, not a "free market not behaving like its theoretical model" problem. Either people don't fully understand the meaning and importance of their privacy, or their revealed preference of not caring that much is just... sadly... true.

Post reply on HN