Self hosted version do not make any sense

[gdcmarinho]

The concept of self-hosting software traditionally appeals to users who value autonomy, privacy, and control over their data. It offers a means to fully own and manage a service without relying on external providers. However, in the case of Standard Notes, the possibility of self-hosting seems misaligned with the expectation of freedom and full functionality, particularly because key features such as basic note formatting are locked behind a paid subscription.

Self-hosting should, in theory, provide an environment where the user has access to the complete capabilities of the software, especially for core features like text formatting, which are fundamental to any note-taking application. By restricting these basic functions to paid tiers, Standard Notes introduces a paradox: the software can be self-hosted, but the user does not truly possess full control over the service. Instead, they are left with a feature-limited version unless they pay for a subscription, which undermines the very principle of self-hosting.

The limitation on formatting and other basic functionalities in the free tier creates a situation where self-hosting becomes largely symbolic rather than practical.

In summary, while it's understandable that Standard Notes needs a sustainable business model, the current implementation of self-hosting doesn't fully align with user expectations for control and independence. For self-hosting to make sense, the software should allow full access to at least the core features that define the note-taking experience. Otherwise, self-hosting becomes a half-measure, reducing the value of what could otherwise be a powerful offering for privacy-conscious users.

[gdcmarinho]

@effieeee, is there any place with discussions about this?