Vercel's playbook with Next so far has been to make convoluted features that exist solely to pad out how much people spend on hosting costs. They also make sure that hosting it anywhere but Vercel comes with footguns, even though theoretically you can host your Next app anywhere you want (and it's gotten better recently solely because of backlash). See https://opennext.js.org/ for example.
They've been so successful with this in fact, that when you check the actual official React documentation, Next is the offering being advertised prominently [1] (I see they've actually restructured this a bit, a few months ago Next was literally the only thing mentioned here, I assume because of backlash they changed it to what it is now).
I have no doubts they'll do the same with Nuxt, demanding they implement features that solely exist to pad out hosting costs while providing next to no actual benefits to end users and devs, and I have no doubts they'll have the same shenanigans as they do with Next where hosting on anything other than Vercel gives you a broken experience. As an actual Extinguish tactic, I can even see them fully shuttering Nuxt in favor of Next. After all, they now have a monopoly over the most popular frontend meta frameworks (Next, Svelte/Kit, Nuxt, Astro) and paying people to maintain all of that is a lot more expensive than just having the 1 (that already has a huge market share to begin with). Thankfully for now it's MIT and fully OSS, so there's a ray of hope here that even if they pull some shenanigans like that, it'll continue living on independently again, but I don't trust anything that has been touched by VC money as far as I can throw it.
> I have no doubts they'll do the same with Nuxt, demanding they implement features that solely exist to pad out hosting costs while providing next to no actual benefits to end users and devs
has that happened with Svelte?
> they now have a monopoly over the most popular frontend meta frameworks (Next, Svelte/Kit, Nuxt, Astro)
Yes. There are features that have been deliberately kept on the platform level to force you to use the platform instead of implementing it on the framework level or guiding you through it with the docs.
ISR _can't_ be implemented at a framework level without tying the framework to the platform. The fact that we instead chose to implement it via a platform-agnostic adapter API surely demonstrates the opposite of what you're implying
This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the explanation. I also remember being a bit shocked when I was learning React and was immediately told to use Next.js with it.
They've been so successful with this in fact, that when you check the actual official React documentation, Next is the offering being advertised prominently [1] (I see they've actually restructured this a bit, a few months ago Next was literally the only thing mentioned here, I assume because of backlash they changed it to what it is now).
I have no doubts they'll do the same with Nuxt, demanding they implement features that solely exist to pad out hosting costs while providing next to no actual benefits to end users and devs, and I have no doubts they'll have the same shenanigans as they do with Next where hosting on anything other than Vercel gives you a broken experience. As an actual Extinguish tactic, I can even see them fully shuttering Nuxt in favor of Next. After all, they now have a monopoly over the most popular frontend meta frameworks (Next, Svelte/Kit, Nuxt, Astro) and paying people to maintain all of that is a lot more expensive than just having the 1 (that already has a huge market share to begin with). Thankfully for now it's MIT and fully OSS, so there's a ray of hope here that even if they pull some shenanigans like that, it'll continue living on independently again, but I don't trust anything that has been touched by VC money as far as I can throw it.
https://react.dev/learn/creating-a-react-app