The past, present, and future of local-first - Martin Kleppmann (Local-First Conf)

> This is trying to solve a business problem (I can't trust cloud-providers) with a technical trade-off (avoid centralized architecture). I don't think that's quite correct. I think the authors fully acknowledge that the business case for local-first is not complexly solved and is a closely related problem. These issues need both a business and technical solution, and the paper proposes a set of characteristics of what a solution could look like. It's also incorrect to suggest that local-first is an argument for decentralisation - Martin Kleppmann has explicitly stated that he doesn't think decentralised tech solves these issues in a way that could become mass market. He is a proponent of centralised standardised sync engines that enable the ideals of local-first. See his talk from Local-first conf last year: ▶ this video

There is a proliferation of sync tools and little standardization. Here some in local-first space [0]. Martin Kleppmann in his talk last year spoke [1] the need for a generic sync protocol, which was very interesting. [0] link [1] ▶ this video

I see, I hear you. That isn't what local-first means, though. This is what local-first means: • link • ▶ this video

Martin Kleppmann in one of his recent talks about the future of local-first, mentions the need for a generic sync service for the 'local-first end-game' [0] as he calls it. Standardization is needed. Right now everyone and their mother is doing sync differently and building production platforms around their own protocols and mechanisms. [0] ▶ this video