|
|
|
|
|
by steve_adams_86
1834 days ago
|
|
I agree. I was a little disappointed to see resources going towards this. It feels like they're seeking ways to create vendor lock-in, which my team fairly aggressively avoids. Next has generally been great about this, and part of the initial appeal. It's just React components inside of an easy-to-understand framework. This, though - my instinct is to stay away from it, personally. It doesn't seem to be their wheelhouse and it doesn't necessarily make Next.js better. |
|
As long as features like next/image and "live" remain opt-in and don't otherwise affect build/dev times, I have no problem with Vercel targeting a lucrative market. Anyone who relies on Next should want Vercel to be a long-lasting company.
Besides, this is the first release of "live" – I can see this workflow becoming appealing to marketing and design teams. It's good practice to separate your marketing website from your application, so why not use "live" to enable non-devs to edit it? That's what Jamstack is all about – empowering the marketing/copywriting/product teams to edit content in real time. Maybe "live" is simply the next logical step of Jamstack – teams of non-devs editing the code and design of websites as easily as they can edit their content.
Developers should be all for that, even if they aren't the target audience of the live features. Reducing friction between dev and non-dev is a win for everybody. Marketers are happy because they can edit content without waiting on devs/deploys, and devs are happy because they talked the non-devs out of using WordPress, and got to build a new site with a hot technology.
I wonder if Vercel considers Automattic a competitor. The "percent of the web" stat is a juicy KPI to compete for.