This isn't a promotion.
I'm genuinely curious how developers think.
Imagine you have two platforms.
Platform A
- Used by millions.
- Been around for years.
- Stable and reliable.
- Updates happen occasionally.
- Your feature requests may never be seen.
Platform B
- Built by a solo developer or a small team.
- Open source.
- Modern tech stack.
- New features ship quickly.
- Bugs get fixed in hours or days.
- You suggest something today, and there's a real chance you'll see it tomorrow.
Which one would you choose?
Not which one is more popular.
Which one would you actually enjoy using?
Something I've noticed while building projects is that new products don't just struggle to grow they often struggle to get people to even try them.
Most people naturally trust what they've already used for years.
And honestly, that makes sense.
Why move away from something that already works?
But sometimes I wonder...
How many genuinely good products never get a chance simply because they launched yesterday instead of five years ago?
We've all seen products that exploded overnight.
But they're the exception.
Most great software grows quietly.
Slowly.
One user at a time.
Here's another question.
If you knew a platform would:
- ship updates every week,
- listen to community feedback,
- add useful features in under 24–48 hours whenever possible,
- stay transparent about development,
- and remain open source... ...would that make you more likely to try it?
Or would you still choose the established product because it already has the reputation?
I'm asking because I've been thinking about building something around this philosophy.
Not just another project.
A product where users aren't waiting months for improvements.
Where feedback actually changes what gets built.
Where development happens in public.
Maybe that's a terrible idea.
Maybe it's exactly what some people want.
I honestly don't know yet.
That's why I'm asking.
What would make you switch from a big, established platform to a new indie one?
I'd love to hear your thoughts—even if your answer is "Nothing would convince me."
Top comments (8)
But I've been working at this article for 8 years!
I put my personal life on hold, just to focus on working at this article!
I want that promotion.
Are you giving it to Greg?
Awww, of course Greg... who could forget Greg, the king of Cafeteria smooth talking.
Jesus... after all I did... you seriously thought, you could give the promotion to Greg, and I would just sit here accepting it numbly?!?!!?
I
Want
That
Promotion
😂 Sorry, Greg had seniority. The promotion committee has spoken.
Nooooooooooo! :)
😂 I tried to fight the decision, but apparently Greg has connections in HR.
Right from the Windows 2000 days, I've always loved exploring and researching apps, and I still do.
I don't choose software because it's a giant brand or an indie project. I choose whatever is lightweight, straightforward, and gets the job done with the least navigational complexity.
I like that perspective. In the end, the software that solves the problem with the least friction usually wins, regardless of who built it. Have you found any indie tools that surprised you over the years?
😂 lol the way this is framed... platform B already won by what you described..
anyways, your theises falls apart because theres no choice here. youre heavily biased on the indie side, then you ask which one people would 'enjoy''? ... clear bias here, not a poill.
and your assumptions are wrong; people dont stick with giants cuz of habits, its because failure cost is real... and even if you ship weekly, you cant do it for free.
but yea, critical paths = giants but tools we build with = indie i guess. but speed alone doesnt make you switch... so depends what you are actually shipping...
😂 Fair criticism. I can see why the framing feels biased I definitely described B through its strongest qualities.
But my point wasn't really “indie is better than giant.” I was more interested in whether changing the nature/environment of the product — faster feedback loops, transparent development, users actually influencing what gets built changes how people want to work with software.
I agree that speed alone isn't enough, especially when failure has a real cost. Reliability, trust, migration, and what the product actually does matter a lot.
So maybe the better question isn't “giant vs indie,” but whether a different product environment can make people choose something new when the risk/reward actually makes sense.
And yeah, I probably should've framed the poll more fairly 😄