I believe that you are completely misguided on why people choose to not self host. I don’t think it’s about convenience, they just don’t care about the same things you care about.
There is a ton of easy to use self hosted software out there, some of which I run. Compared to their SaaS alternatives though they are extremely unpopular. For a lot of people “buy a raspberry pi” will always be too complex, too expensive (you’re competing against free), and too much long term hassle. Much easier to use the free service that everyone else uses which will be continuously updated with new features automatically.
I get that, but and most of these companies do offer paid alternatives. My point is that if you are able, why not self host? There will always be companies that cannot self host which pay for the hosted solutions.
I'm a developer who's been taking a crack at the convenience problem of selfhosting. I've been hosting my own services with various success for the last few years, and maintenance has never been an issue. Once the software is running, it's pretty trivial to update it.
The biggest pain point is installation. Most selfhosted software has a ton of dependencies to install first. And after that there's usually some configuration that has to be done before it will work. A complicated installation is enough to drive even tech savy users away.
I've had some luck with my own software by targeting Windows users as well. Most people don't want to setup a linux box just to selfhost a single piece of software.
Hey, yes most companies would not want to self host, and for them there are plenty of options, but we do have companies that opt to self host. There are few reasons we have seen so far
- Operating in a regulated industry, we have customers who cannot send customer data to 3rd party services (in financial services, healthcare) and need to self host for that reason
- Existing solutions are too expensive for their business model, we have Kenyan, Brazilian and Mexican consumer focused companies from other countries spin up and use the self-hosted solution
- Cost savings and Philosophy, believe it or not there are some companies which like to self host software if possible, and have dedicated dev ops resources already maintaining software and spinning up another solution is not that much incremental work.
Beyond that there are other reasons to want to open source a solution like this. Anyone can add communication channels and integrations for example. And lastly its fun to work on an open code base!
More people should try to self host things again. Seems that people are forgetting how things work and instead use services that does it for them at some cost.
Self hosting is rarely complicated. It's also easy to achieve better performance and lower cost in many situations.
Everything you're saying is still from the perspective of an enthusiast/idealist; try to step out of the bubble. Most people don't think about their technology that way.
They don't care that it follows abstract ideals, or that it sticks it to Big Tech. They probably don't want to spend an extra five dollars, or an extra five minutes, on those things. They want technology that makes their life tangibly better, that lets them do things they couldn't otherwise, and that just works. And most people won't understand the subtle difference between "self-hosted with remote-admin" and "not self-hosted" anyway.
I'm not judging them. I want simple most of the time too. I make some different choices here and there, but I often pick the easy solution when it comes to consumer tech, because I have other things in my life I'd rather spend my energy on.
I'm not sure self-hosting can ever get there, but if it does, it's still got a steep road to climb first.
There's a huge support cost in providing self-host, together with an impact on image (ease of use, etc). With the tiny proportion of people who actually would self-host, I don't think it makes any business sense.
I want a self-host, and generally resist on any technology unless I can, but at the same time I don't expect any company looking to sell products to actually do it.
So self-host generally only goes hand-in-hand with non-commercial projects.
Self-hosting is just responsible computing now. The big companies are just too big to care about small businesses, and will use your data in any way that they please - take it or leave it. And it's cheaper to boot. A synology NAS or a raspberry pi 3 could cover 90% of what most internet services offer the average consumer/small business right now.
This is a very good point. Even if you don't want to self-host and you'd rather use a service, having the software available as open source so you can self-host if you so choose, makes it more rational to use the service, because it makes it harder for you to be screwed the way OP's startup was.
Sorry but this comment strikes me as incredibly ignorant. There are lots of good reasons to self host, chief among them reasons which can't be worked around - compliance and data sovereignty.
So you've never been screwed over by an online-only product becoming horribly shitty, or incredibly expensive? To me, the ability to counteract any insane company policies is a big reason that the ability to self host is incredibly important.
Even if it's just a stop gap solution while we find a better solution to migrate to.
The average person is not capable of self-hosting software and SaaS is much nicer looking / more fully features 99% of the time. I say this as someone who loves self-hosting and self hosts most of my own stuff.
As someone who is fairly tech literate, and has his own home server. I disagree. Self hosting still isn’t anywhere near consumer friendly enough to be a mainstream option for most people.
For those that avoid it on the grounds of "it is too hard to self-host", may I suggest a much simpler alternative? It takes two simple steps:
1) buy a domain name
2) Foment/patronize SMBs that can provide hosting for open source software alternatives.
That's it. By demanding open source alternatives, you are ensuring that the service vendor can not lock you in. By using your own domain, you get the freedom to port your services to anyone that offers better price/better support/better performance.
I would interested in hearing examples of software that is a breeze to self host and terrible to self host. And most importantly, why? What can software devs do to make something a breeze? And what should they avoid? Thanks.
I really prefer hosting applications on my own, instead of using any third-party service. Sure, the freedom comes at great costs (maintenance, updates,...), but I am willing to spend my time instead of taking the risk for my data and "critical personal infrastructure".
The only downside is, and maybe ever will be, that self hosting is nothing for the casual user.
There is a ton of easy to use self hosted software out there, some of which I run. Compared to their SaaS alternatives though they are extremely unpopular. For a lot of people “buy a raspberry pi” will always be too complex, too expensive (you’re competing against free), and too much long term hassle. Much easier to use the free service that everyone else uses which will be continuously updated with new features automatically.
reply