I think indigodaddy's comment is necessary since people keep asking why a desktop app.

For the people who don't looking for domain names at least once/twice a week, you won't need this app. I try to build it for people who like to look for available domains

(indigodaddy) Thanks and you're on point. Just to clarify, there are some features that can't run as JS on the client-side. ElectronJS allows using NodeJS code as well.

"he" is good.

No need to make a separate comment thread about other the results of other threads. If the other threads have been truly resolved then there are already comment chains to read. On the other hand if they were not actually resolved then all of the discussion is now split and duplicated.

Regarding availability what exactly about making a web app restricts you from offering a downloadable copy?

Regardless it looks like a web version is now on the roadmap according to the site.

Sure, nothing is stopping the author from making a web app, and that would actually be fine and most people would use that, and it would probably be the best path and focus. I’m not discounting that.

I was just attempting to summarize the author’s reasoning for making a nonweb/local application. And in all honesty the author can and should do what the author wants and what they feel is best.

There just seemed to be unwarranted and frankly odd “outrage” about it in a lot of comments.

Creator can certainly create whatever they want but clearly target audience feedback on a paid product is valuable in steering the future direction of a product as is seen with the future goals so no need to discount it as unwarranted or paint it as unhelpful.

I didn’t realize it was a paid product, and I’d bet that most of the “complainants” didn’t know either, or weren’t framing it from that perspective in any case.

Furthermore, now that it’s being framed as a paid product for this discussion, in my view, I believe they will be more successful in sales of a paid “piece of software” vs a webapp/SaaS/monthly model.

Likely this was part of their reasoning of going down this path if I had to guess.

> I didn’t realize it was a paid product, and I’d bet that most of the “complainants” didn’t know either, or weren’t framing it from that perspective in any case.

No need to place or assume blame on the other commentors for not telling you about what was in the page.

> Furthermore, now that it’s being framed as a paid product for this discussion, in my view, I believe they will be more successful in sales of a paid “piece of software” vs a webapp/SaaS/monthly model.

This seems like another thing you are forcing onto "what a webapp must be". Nowhere in making a webapp is it required to use a subscription model.

Another way to think about it is since it's not using desktop integration specific functionality it's already an offline copy of the webapp right now as is with Electron. The app is just effectively browser restricted to that Electron version. Removing that restriction does not relate to changing the offline static site delivery model nor a change in the payment model.

> Likely this was part of their reasoning of going down this path if I had to guess.

No need to keep guessing. As you said the author has already responded to the comments. As I said the page already promises an upcoming web version. There is no need for theoreticals.

The goal of creating this tool is for long-term users. I doubt people who complain about it will use the tool more than a few times a year.

That said, I will be working on the web version.