Local-First Software: You Own Your Data, in spite of the Cloud - article review
This article is derived from a presentation given at a Papers We Love meetup on the same subject.
This is a review of the article “Local-First Software: You Own Your Data, in spite of the Cloud”, by M. Kleppmann, A. Wiggins, P. Van Hardenberg and M. F. McGranaghan.
The “local-first” term they use isn’t new, and I have used it myself in the past to refer to this types of application, where the data lives primarily on the client, and there are conflict resolution algorithms that reconcile data created on different instances.
Sometimes I see confusion with this idea and “client-side”, “offline-friendly”, “syncable”, etc. I have myself used this terms, also.
There exists, however, already the “offline-first” term, which conveys almost all of that meaning. In my view, “local-first” doesn’t extend “offline-first” in any aspect, rather it gives a well-defined meaning to it instead. I could say that “local-first” is just “offline-first”, but with 7 well-defined ideals instead of community best practices.
It is a step forward, and given the number of times I’ve seen the paper shared around I think there’s a chance people will prefer saying “local-first” in lieu of “offline-first” from now on.
On a footnote of the 7th ideal (“You Retain Ultimate Ownership and Control”), the authors say:
In our opinion, maintaining control and ownership of data does not mean that the software must necessarily be open source. (…) as long as it does not artificially restrict what users can do with their files.
They give examples of artificial restrictions, like this artificial restriction I’ve come up with:
Now when using this very useful program:
This is obviously an intentional restriction, and it goes against the 5th ideal (“The Long Now”). This software would only be useful as long as the embedded license expiration allowed. Sure you could change the clock on the computer, but there are many other ways that this type of intentional restriction is in conflict with that ideal.
However, what about unintentional restrictions? What if a software had an equal or similar restriction, and stopped working after days pass? Or what if the programmer added a constant to make the development simpler, and this led to unintentionally restricting the user?
Just as easily as I can come up with ways to intentionally restrict users, I can do the same for unintentionally restrictions. A program can stop working for a variety of reasons.
If it stops working due do, say, data growth, what are the options? Reverting to an earlier backup, and making it read-only? That isn’t really a “Long Now”, but rather a “Long Now as long as the software keeps working as expected”.
The point is: if the software isn’t free, “The Long Now” isn’t achievable without a lot of wishful thinking. Maybe the authors were trying to be more friendly towards business who don’t like free software, but in doing so they’ve proposed a contradiction by reconciling “The Long Now” with proprietary software.
It isn’t the same as saying that any free software achieves that ideal, either. The license can still be free, but the source code can become unavailable due to cloud rot. Or maybe the build is undocumented, or the build tools had specific configuration that one has to guess. A piece of free software can still fail to achieve “The Long Now”. Being free doesn’t guarantee it, just makes it possible.
A colleague has challenged my view, arguing that the software doesn’t really need to be free, as long as there is an specification of the file format. This way if the software stops working, the format can still be processed by other programs. But this doesn’t apply in practice: if you have a document that you write to, and software stops working, you still want to write to the document. An external tool that navigates the content and shows it to you won’t allow you to keep writing, and when it does that tool is now starting to re-implement the software.
An open specification could serve as a blueprint to other implementations, making the data format more friendly to reverse-engineering. But the re-implementation still has to exist, at which point the original software failed to achieve “The Long Now”.
It is less bad, but still not quite there yet.
When describing “Existing Data Storage and Sharing Models”, on a footnote1 the authors say:
In principle it is possible to collaborate without a repository service, e.g. by sending patch files by email, but the majority of Git users rely on GitHub.
The authors go to a great length to talk about usability of cloud apps, and even point to research they’ve done on it, but they’ve missed learning more from local-first solutions that already exist.
Say the automerge CRDT proves to be even more useful than what everybody imagined. Say someone builds a local-first repository service using it. How will it change anything of the Git/GitHub model? What is different about it that prevents people in the future writing a paper saying:
In principle it is possible to collaborate without a repository service, e.g. by using automerge and platform X, but the majority of Git users rely on GitHub.
How is this any better?
If it is already possible to have a local-first development workflow, why don’t people use it? Is it just fashion, or there’s a fundamental problem with it? If so, what is it, and how to avoid it?
If sending patches by emails is perfectly possible but out of fashion, why even talk about Git/GitHub? Isn’t this a problem that people are putting themselves in? How can CRDTs possibly prevent people from doing that?
My impression is that the authors envision a better future, where development is fully decentralized unlike today, and somehow CRDTs will make that happen. If more people think this way, “CRDT” is next in line to the buzzword list that solves everything, like “containers”, “blockchain” or “machine learning”.
Rather than picturing an imaginary service that could be described like “GitHub+CRDTs” and people would adopt it, I’d rather better understand why people don’t do it already, since Git is built to work like that.
The authors put web application in a worse position for building local-first application, claiming that:
(…) the architecture of web apps remains fundamentally server-centric. Offline support is an afterthought in most web apps, and the result is accordingly fragile.
Well, I disagree.
The problem isn’t inherit to the web platform, but instead how people use it.
I have myself built offline-first applications, leveraging IndexedDB, App Cache, etc. I wanted to build an offline-first application on the web, and so I did.
In fact, many people choose PouchDB because of that, since it is a good tool for offline-first web applications. The problem isn’t really the technology, but how much people want their application to be local-first.
Contrast it with Android Instant Apps, where applications are sent to the phone in small parts. Since this requires an internet connection to move from a part of the app bundle to another, a subset of the app isn’t local-first, despite being an app.
The point isn’t the technology, but how people are using it. Local-first web applications are perfectly possible, just like non-local-first native applications are possible.
I think the costs of “old-fashioned apps” over “cloud apps” are underrated, mainly regarding storage, and that this costs can vary a lot by application.
Say a person writes online articles for their personal website, and puts everything into Git. Since there isn’t supposed to be any collaboration, all of the relevant ideals of local-first are achieved.
Now another person creates videos instead of articles. They could try keeping everything local, but after some time the storage usage fills the entire disk. This person’s local-first setup would be much more complex, and would cost much more on maintenance, backup and storage.
Even though both have similar needs, a local-first video repository is much more demanding. So the local-first thinking here isn’t “just keep everything local”, but “how much time and money am I willing to spend to keep everything local”.
The convenience of “cloud apps” becomes so attractive that many don’t even have a local copy of their videos, and rely exclusively on service providers to maintain, backup and store their content.
The dial measuring “cloud apps” and “old-fashioned apps” needs to be specific to use-cases.
If I were the one making the list of ideals, I wouldn’t focus so much on real-time collaboration.
Even though seamless collaboration is desired, it being real-time depends on the network being available for that. But ideal 3 states that “The Network is Optional”, so real-time collaboration is also optional.
The fundamentals of a local-first system should enable real-time collaboration when network is available, but shouldn’t focus on it.
On many places when discussing applications being offline, it is common for me to find people saying that their application works “even on a plane, subway or elevator”. That is a reflection of when said developers have to deal with networks being unavailable.
But this leaves out a big chunk of the world where internet connection is intermittent, or only works every other day or only once a week, or stops working when it rains, etc. For this audience, living without network connectivity isn’t such a discrete moment in time, but part of every day life. I like the fact that the authors acknowledge that.
When discussing “working offline”, I’d rather keep this type of person in mind, then the subset of people who are offline when on the elevator will naturally be included.
When discussing developer experience, the authors bring up some questions to be answered further, like:
For an app developer, how does the use of a CRDT-based data layer compare to existing storage layers like a SQL database, a filesystem, or CoreData? Is a distributed system harder to write software for?
That is an easy one: yes.
A distributed system is harder to write software for, being a distributed system.
Adding a large layer of data structures and algorithms will make it more complex to write software for, naturally. And if trying to make this layer transparent to the programmer, so they can pretend that layer doesn’t exist is a bad idea, as RPC frameworks have tried, and failed.
See “A Note on Distributed Computing” for a critique on RPC frameworks trying to make the network invisible, which I think also applies in equivalence for making the CRDTs layer invisible.
I liked a lot the article, as it took the “offline-first” philosophy and ran with it.
But I think the authors’ view of adding CRDTs and things becoming local-first is a bit too magical.
This particular area is one that I have large interest on, and I wish to see more being done on the “local-first” space.
This is the second aspect that I’m picking on the article from a footnote. I guess the devil really is on the details. ↩