Almost every tool now begins the same way. You arrive, you're interested, and before you can see anything you're asked for an email address and a password.
It's so normal that the strangeness has worn off. You're being asked to establish a relationship with a company before you've formed any view about whether their thing is any good.
goaldrift doesn't do it. You arrive, you add a goal, it's there. Nothing to create, nothing to confirm.
What the signup wall is for
Not, mostly, for you. Three things it does for the company.
It creates a record. An email address is a contact you can market to later, and a count you can report. A visitor who leaves without signing up is invisible; one who signs up and never returns is a number.
It manufactures commitment. Having created an account, people are marginally more likely to return, because they've invested something. That's a real effect and it's being deliberately exploited.
And it makes sync trivial. If everyone has an account, everything lives on the server and multiple devices are straightforward. That's a genuine engineering benefit rather than a dark pattern, and it's the honest reason a lot of products do it.
What it does for the user, on day one, is nothing at all.
There's a fourth reason that's rarely stated: an account makes the product feel more substantial. A tool you sign into seems more like a service and less like a web page, and that impression has commercial value independent of anything it delivers. It's a small piece of theatre, and like most theatre it costs the audience something.
The cost of asking first
Two costs, and the second is more interesting than the first.
The obvious one is that people leave. A signup form between someone and the thing they came for loses a substantial fraction of them, most of whom would have tried the product and some of whom would have liked it.
The subtler one is what it does to evaluation. Once you've made an account you're no longer assessing the tool neutrally — you've spent something, and sunk cost applies to attention as much as to money. People persist with tools they'd have abandoned in the first five minutes had they not signed up first, which is good for retention numbers and not good for them.
Letting someone use the thing before asking for anything means the assessment is honest. If they don't come back, that's information, and the information is more useful than the email address.
That's an uncomfortable thing to build around, because it means the product has to be worth returning to on its own merits every time, with no accumulated investment holding anyone in place. It's also the only arrangement under which the feedback means anything.
What we do instead
Goals live in your browser. That's the real copy, not a cache — nothing needs to be sent anywhere for the app to work.
Nothing ever leaves unless you carry it out yourself: you can save everything to a file and load it elsewhere, and that file never contains your API key.
Sync will come, for the people who want their goals on two devices — and when it does it will be the same trade made explicit rather than assumed: a thing you opt into when you want it, rather than the price of the front door.
The default is the private one. Not because syncing is bad, but because the choice ought to start where it costs you least.
What this costs you
The honest section, because no-account has real disadvantages.
Browser storage is not permanent storage. Clearing site data removes it. Some privacy settings and cleanup tools remove it. Nobody is coming to restore it, because nobody else has it. The export exists for exactly this reason and it's only useful if you actually use it.
There's no password recovery, because there's no password. If you rely on the local copy and lose the machine, that's the end of it.
And support is harder. A company with your account can look at your data and tell you what went wrong. One without it can only ask you questions.
There's a fairness point too. Local-first, no-account software quietly assumes a certain amount of comfort with exports, backups and browser behaviour. That isn't everyone, and an arrangement that protects the confident and loses the data of the less confident isn't obviously better for everybody — it's better along one dimension and worse along another.
Those are real trades. The reason they seem worth making is the shape of this particular thing: one person, personal notes, a record that's worth most when it's long-lived. For a collaborative tool used by a team, the balance falls the other way, and it isn't close.
The thirty-second visit
The design assumes a specific interaction, and the account decision follows from it.
You open the app. The thing you've been avoiding longest is at the top, because it's been at the top all week. You look at the number, decide whether to act, maybe write a line, and close it.
Thirty seconds. That's the intended use, most days.
An app built around that interaction has no business asking for an account first, because the value it provides is small and immediate and doesn't survive a form. Products that ask upfront are usually ones where the payoff is further in — a workspace to set up, a team to invite, data to import. There's none of that here. There's a list and a number.
What's left if we disappear
The question worth asking of any tool holding a personal record: if this company vanished on Friday, what would I still have?
Here the answer is a file on your machine, in a format you can read, containing your goals and everything you wrote about them. That works whether or not anyone is still maintaining this, and it doesn't require anybody's permission or cooperation.
It's a low ambition for a business and the right one for a tool. The record of what you've been trying to do with your life should outlast the software you happened to keep it in.
Related: Local-first software, explained · Bring your own key · What we left out of goaldrift, and why
Share: