▲ | robenkleene 4 days ago | |||||||
Apple is practically the most antithetical to "free software" company around, yet Apple maintains perhaps the largest fleet of local-first apps in existence, e.g., off the top of my head: Calendar, Contacts, Keynote, Mail, Notes, Numbers, Photos, and Pages (these are all examples of apps that support multi-device sync and/or real-time collaboration). I think the truth of your statement is more that free software tends towards what you might call "offline" software (e.g., software that doesn't sync or offer real-time collaboration), because there's more friction for having a syncing backend with free software. | ||||||||
▲ | MathMonkeyMan 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Maybe the distinction is in that word "app." We started calling programs "apps" when smart phones came out. Smart phones are remote-first, and it makes sense (or it did) as long as you think of a phone as your terminal into... something. Your examples are all programs that predate mobile, even though they are available on mobile (are they local-first on mobile too?). | ||||||||
| ||||||||
▲ | jkaplowitz 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
The Windows desktop version of Microsoft's suite is probably bigger, more widely used, and just as local-first than Apple's suite, with the exception of the new version of Outlook that's still very far from replacing the traditional and local-first version. (They haven't tried to do any such replacement of the rest of their suite.) | ||||||||
▲ | dredmorbius 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Apple sells hardware. (And, increasingly, entertainment and services.) Software is a positive complement to those revenue sources. |