Many developers arrive at local-first through a familiar path. They build an application that works offline, discover users want their data on multiple devices, and begin adding synchronisation.
What seems like a natural progression often becomes a significant architectural challenge.
Understanding this journey helps you make better decisions about if and when to take each step.
Why Offline-First Often Comes First
The motivation for offline-first development usually begins with a practical observation: network connections are unreliable. Users open applications on aeroplanes, in rural areas, in underground stations, and in buildings with poor reception.
An application that fails without connectivity frustrates users at precisely the moments they need it most.
Offline-first solves this problem elegantly. Data lives on the device. The application functions without asking permission from a remote server. Users can create, read, update, and delete their information regardless of network status. When connectivity returns, changes might upload to a backup server, but the application never depends on that server for core functionality.
This architecture delivers immediate benefits.
Performance improves dramatically when reads and writes hit local storage rather than crossing the network. Privacy strengthens because data need not leave the device.
Reliability increases because there are fewer points of failure. Users gain genuine ownership of their information.
For many applications, offline-first represents the destination rather than a waypoint. A personal journal, a local recipe collection, a single-device task manager: these tools serve their users well without ever introducing multi-device complexity. The question of sync need not arise.
What Changes When Sync Is Introduced
The decision to add synchronisation transforms an offline-first application into something fundamentally different. That transformation deserves careful consideration before any code is written.
An offline-first application has a simple model of truth. The device holds the data. All operations occur against that local store. There is no ambiguity about which version is authoritative because only one version exists.
Introducing sync fractures this simplicity.
Now multiple devices each hold copies of the data. Each believes its copy is complete and correct.
The application must suddenly answer questions it could previously ignore: What happens when two devices change the same record? How do deletions propagate? What if one device is running an older version of the application with a different data schema?
This is not merely a technical challenge. It represents a philosophical shift in what the application is and what promises it makes to users.
An offline-first application promises that your data is safe on your device.
A local-first application with sync must promise that your data is safe across all your devices and that changes will not be lost or corrupted as they travel between them.
Increased Complexity and Responsibility
The complexity increase when moving from offline-first to local-first is not linear. It is closer to exponential. Consider the state space your application must handle.
With offline-first, you manage one device with one data store. The possible states are: data exists, data does not exist, operation succeeds, operation fails. These states are manageable and testable.
With sync across two devices, you must consider: Device A is online and Device B is offline. Device B is online and Device A is offline. Both are online but have conflicting changes. Both are offline and have made independent changes. One has pending changes when the other comes online. A sync begins but is interrupted. The sync server is unavailable. One device has been reset. One device is running a newer app version.
Add a third device and the combinations multiply further. Add the possibility of shared data between users and the complexity grows again.
This is not meant to discourage you from building sync capabilities. It is meant to ensure you enter that work with appropriate expectations. The responsibility you accept when promising users their data will sync reliably is substantial.
Testing must be thorough. Error handling must be robust. User communication must be clear.
Tooling and Mindset Shifts
Moving from offline-first to local-first often requires new tools and new ways of thinking about data.
Data structures change. Simple key-value storage that worked perfectly for a single device may not support the merge operations that sync requires. You might need conflict-free replicated data types, operational transformation, or event sourcing patterns.
Testing expands. Single-device testing scenarios give way to multi-device choreography. You need to simulate network partitions, concurrent modifications, and interrupted syncs.
Error handling deepens. When a local write fails, you can report it immediately. When a sync fails, the situation is murkier. Did some changes propagate? Should you retry automatically or wait for user action?
User interface grows. Users need to understand sync status and have clear paths to resolve conflicts when automatic resolution is not possible.
The mindset shift is perhaps the most significant change. Offline-first thinking is inherently simpler: one device, one truth, operations that succeed or fail locally.
Local-first thinking requires comfort with eventual consistency, with the idea that different devices may temporarily have different views of reality, and with the choreography required to bring them back into agreement.
Practical Tasks
Before committing to the offline-first to local-first transition, work through these exercises honestly.
Task One: Evaluate Whether Your Tool Is Ready
Answer these questions about your current application:
Data model clarity: Can you clearly define every entity and relationship in your data? Are there any implicit assumptions that work on a single device but would create ambiguity across multiple devices?
Identifier strategy: How do you generate unique identifiers for records? Will two devices generating identifiers simultaneously ever produce conflicts? UUIDs solve this; auto-incrementing integers do not.
Deletion handling: How do you handle deletions? Soft deletes that mark records as inactive travel well across devices. Hard deletes that remove rows can create resurrection problems when a device that does not know about the deletion syncs an old version.
Schema evolution: How do you handle changes to your data model? If Device A updates to a new app version with new fields before Device B, what happens when they sync?
Conflict scenarios: List five realistic scenarios where two devices might modify the same data independently. For each, describe what the ideal outcome would be. If you struggle to define ideal outcomes, you may not be ready for sync.
Task Two: Define a No-Sync Baseline Version
Before building sync, ensure your offline-first foundation is solid. Define explicitly what your application does without any sync capability:
Document every feature and confirm it works fully offline
Identify any features that currently assume network access and decide whether to modify or remove them
Establish clear data export and import capabilities so users can manually transfer data if needed
Create comprehensive tests for all offline functionality
This baseline serves two purposes. First, it ensures you have a solid fallback if sync development encounters problems. Second, it may become a product offering itself. Many users prefer simple, single-device tools. A well-designed offline-first version has genuine value independent of any sync capabilities you might add later.
Knowing When Not to Move Forward
The journey from offline-first to local-first is not mandatory. For many applications and many development contexts, staying at offline-first is the wiser choice.
Consider remaining offline-first if your application genuinely serves single-device use cases. A desktop application for a specific workflow may not need mobile access. A tool designed for focused work might actually benefit from not following users across devices.
Consider remaining offline-first if your development resources are limited. Sync done poorly is worse than no sync at all. Corrupted data, lost changes, and confusing conflict states damage user trust severely. If you cannot commit the time and attention that reliable sync requires, a solid offline-first application serves users better.
Consider remaining offline-first if your data model is particularly complex or domain-specific. The effort required to make specialised data structures sync reliably may exceed the value delivered. Users might prefer manual export and import over automatic sync that occasionally produces unexpected results.
There is no shame in building excellent offline-first software. The industry's current bias toward cloud-connected applications does not make that architecture correct for every use case.
A tool that does one thing well, works reliably without network access, and respects user data ownership is valuable regardless of whether it syncs.
The Decision Is Yours
The path from offline-first to local-first is well-travelled but not obligatory. Understanding the complexity involved helps you make informed decisions about whether and when to take that step.
Some applications benefit enormously from multi-device sync. Others serve their users best by remaining focused on single-device excellence.
What matters is that you make the choice deliberately, with clear understanding of the trade-offs, and with honest assessment of your capacity to deliver on the promises that sync implies. Your users deserve software that works reliably.
Sometimes that means sophisticated synchronisation. Sometimes it means knowing when to stop.
Thanks for sharing:
