The app is built, why not just let it simmer for awhile. Are the costs of running it greater than the money it brings in?
So frustrating as a user.
Everything as SaaS web apps is just yet another chapter in the enshittification of tech.
Isn't this fine as long as this is the only thing it does?
"Making sure this has been paid for" seems completely legitimate.
What doesn't work in Safari and Firefox is (non sandboxed) access to the files of a user. OPFS is sandboxed.
For one thing, it's origin-private, so take a guess how well that works when the company owning the DNS records for that origin goes out of business.
(There's also the issue with actually having an executable that can just run without any external dependencies)
> when the company owning the DNS records for that origin goes out of business.
Likely not a problem. Local data in OPFS is synced with a remote server for collaboration reasons anyway.
> There's also the issue with actually having an executable that can just run without any external dependencies
Assume you target the browser as OS, then it's already possible to have an executable: Run the JS file that renders a UI. Related: We will likely have an app launcher demo soon for https://lix.opral.com/
Hiring a contracting company for 3 mo per year to perform updates.
My guess is the decision maker doesn’t think it’s worth their time to run a business like this. Instead of rapidly shifting focus into a higher growth area, they would continue to be attached to a shrinking product
you don't have to retain qualified engineers b/c you hire a contracting company that manages employee growth within their own organization.
I've done this job for a 3-4 startups before. they can't afford a full time engineer, so they hire someone to work part-time to keep the lights on. its not a hard job and many engineers appreciate the consistent work and extra cash.