There used to be a sense that the React community had ownership of the project. Nowadays, it feels more like a hosting company is managing it internally.
That shift happened slowly, then all at once.
The Quiet Takeover
Several React core team members work for Vercel. Everyone knows that. They even mention it on their LinkedIn profiles.
Consider this for a minute. The people deciding React's future collect paychecks from a company that sells React deployment. The roadmap and the business model have their lunch together.
Server Components and the App Router were not requested by thousands of developers. They were envisioned, and it just so happens that that aligns perfectly with Vercel’s infrastructure narrative. Two features that would be extremely hard to self-host, but are trivial to Vercel. Funny that.
"Open Source" With an Asterisk
React is still MIT-licensed. Nobody disputes that.
Open-source is more than just a license. It's a feeling of governance. It's about deciding if the community is involved as a contributor or a user.
Right now? A lot of developers feel like consumers.
→ Server Components require deep framework integration where Next.js remains the most mature implementation, with other frameworks like RedwoodJS and Waku offering experimental or limited support
→ The App Router introduced mental model changes that benefit server-centric architectures
→ Documentation increasingly assumes you're using Next.js as the default path
You could attempt to use React Server Components without Next.js at some point. In theory, it's possible just like how it's possible to run a marathon without shoes. It can be done. However, your better judgment will likely advise against it.
The "Does Anybody Actually Like React?" Question
A thread with that exact title recently gained serious traction in developer forums. Not from newbies. From experienced engineers who have been authoring React for years. 🤔
The real problem isn't with JSX, hooks, or the virtual DOM. Those issues were resolved long ago.
The frustration with React comes down to one thing really, trust. Developers opted into React because it was a library, and a view library at that, not a framework.
Currently, the library has tendrils growing into your server, tendrils growing into your routing, tendrils growing into your caching layer, and tendrils growing into your deployment target. And all of those tendrils keep pointing at one company's checkout page.
What's Actually at Stake
I don't believe Vercel is bad. They hire intelligent people and develop actual technology.
However, the future development of a library that is being used by millions of developers should not be based on the business model of one company. This is not the concept of open source. It is more like a marketing channel that has a GitHub repository. 🔥
The React team would argue that these features benefit everyone. And to be fair, they do. But you can also claim that “benefits everyone” and “mainly benefits one company” are both correct at the same time.
This was anticipated by other frameworks. Svelte, Solid, and even Vue have always had a clearer separation between the core library and the deployment layer. React kinda mixed it up, and now people are starting to question for whom the framework is built.
Where This Leaves Us
The previous version of React that served as only a view library is obsolete. The current version of React acts as a full-stack opinion engine, and you will also find a billing page attached with that opinion.
You are not obliged to use React with Vercel. Many teams don't. But the gravity is real, and it pulls harder with every release.
The React ecosystem would benefit the most if it could set up its own overseeing body. For instance, a foundation or steering committee where most members are not employed by any specific company. We need to make “open” mean a lot more than just a title of a license document. ✊
Well, the question remains if React's direction is primarily determined by one company, is the open-sourcing of the code enough to gain your trust in the project's direction now? If not, what would have to change for that to be the case?
Top comments (2)
On your closing question, I don't think the MIT license was ever the thing that earned trust, so losing faith in it makes sense. Governance is the real lever, and a foundation only helps if it actually controls the roadmap, not just the trademark and a logo. Plenty of projects sit under a neutral foundation on paper while the direction still comes from whoever pays the core maintainers. So the test isn't "is there a foundation," it's "can an RFC the maintainers' employer dislikes still get merged." Until that's true, the org chart matters more than the license file, which is basically the point you're making.
This is a great take. I've been