Quality software from independent makers is like quality food from the farmer’s market. A jar of handmade organic jam is nothing like mass-produced corn syrup-laden jam from the supermarket.

Industrial fruit jam is filled with cheap ingredients and shelf stabilizers. Industrial software is filled with privacy-invasive trackers and proprietary formats. The comparison isn’t cute. It’s accurate.

I’ve been thinking about this while building Basalt. Not because I’m trying to be philosophical. Because every design decision comes down to the same question: do I build this like an artisan, or like a factory?

The industrial software model

Google, Apple, and Microsoft make industrial software. Like industrial jam, it has benefits. It’s cheap, fairly reliable, widely available, and often gets the job done.

But the economics look different up close.

Google’s apps are “free” because you pay with your attention and your data. Apple’s apps are “free” because you’re already locked into their hardware ecosystem. Microsoft’s apps are cheap because enterprise contracts subsidize consumer pricing. The same pattern applies to budgeting apps, even the ones you pay for. They rent your data to advertisers and data brokers.

These companies have hundreds of billions in revenue and hundreds of thousands of employees. They can absorb costs that would bankrupt a small team. They can subsidize pricing until the competition starves. They can acquire a competitor and absorb its user base. Mint’s $7B acquisition by Intuit is the canonical example.

And then there’s venture capital. Some companies raise hundreds of millions, subsidize pricing with investor money until the cash runs out, and then the quality declines. Or they get acquired and your data becomes part of someone else’s balance sheet. This pattern is well-documented in the hidden fees of “free” budgeting apps.

None of this is malevolent. It’s industrial. And industrial processes are built for scale, not for the people using the end product.

What the artisan approach looks like

When one person builds a product, every decision is personal. There’s no shareholder meeting where someone asks why you’re not monetizing the user base harder. No roadmap dictated by quarterly targets. No “ship it and see what the data says.”

The artisan approach means:

  • Privacy is structural, not a policy. If your data never leaves your device, there’s nothing to sell, leak, or subpoena. That’s not a feature you bolt on. It’s a design choice that affects every layer. This is the philosophy behind file-based budgeting, where your budget lives in files you control rather than someone else’s database.

  • Simplicity is deliberate, not accidental. Industrial software adds features because the roadmap demands growth. Artisan software says no because every addition carries real costs: complexity, maintenance, cognitive load.

  • The relationship is direct. You can email the person who built your budgeting app. They’ll read it. When something breaks, it’s not a ticket in a queue. It’s a real problem someone cares about fixing.

Independent makers go out of their way to build apps that are better for you. They take a principled approach to tools that don’t compromise your privacy and don’t lock you in. That’s not charity. It’s the only way a small team can compete. They can’t outspend Google. They can’t outgrow Apple. But they can out-care.

The competence gap

There’s another dimension to this. As software gets more complex and teams get larger, no single person understands the whole system. This creates a competence crisis where we’re shipping things nobody fully comprehends.

Industrial software is increasingly fragile. Complex beyond anyone’s ability to reason about it. Artisan-scale software has the opposite property. One person can hold the entire system in their head. When something breaks, they can trace it, understand it, and fix it without a cross-team war room.

This isn’t nostalgia for the old days. It’s a structural advantage that small-scale software has over large-scale software. The economics favor scale, but the engineering favors comprehension.

How this applies to your money

A budgeting app is the most intimate software most people use. It knows your income, your spending, your debts, your goals. It reveals health conditions from pharmacy purchases, relationship changes from shared expenses, travel plans from bookings.

Handing that data to an industrial-scale app with 47 data-sharing partners and a venture capital mandate is a gamble. The alternative is an artisan-built tool with transparent economics: you pay for the software, and that’s it. No ads, no data selling, no lead generation, no success fees. Just a tool that works.

Consider cost per use. A good budgeting app costs $35-100 per year. Most people spend more than that on coffee in a month. Yet we’ll agonize over a ten-dollar subscription while handing over our entire financial history to a “free” app.

The artisan approach inverts this. You pay more upfront, but you get privacy that’s structural, a builder who answers to users not investors, data you actually own, and an app simple enough for one person to understand and maintain.

Not everything needs to be artisan

Industrial software has its place. I’m not going to tell you to stop using Google or switch to a handcrafted note-taking app. But for your financial life, the most sensitive data you’ll ever generate, the economics of artisan software work with your interests in ways industrial software structurally cannot.

That’s why Basalt is built by one person, with file-based storage, without VC funding, and without a single analytics tracker. It’s the artisan approach applied to your budget. Your data stays on your devices, your files stay yours, and the person who built it reads every email.

FAQ

Q: How does the artisan approach differ from just being a small company? A: Size alone doesn’t make you an artisan. A small company with VC funding and a growth-at-all-costs mandate is still industrial in its logic. Artisan means building for the people who use the product, not for an exit.

Q: Is artisan software always better? A: Not automatically. Some industrial software is genuinely excellent. But the incentives are at odds: industrial software needs to monetize you somehow, while artisan software needs to keep you as a customer. Those produce different outcomes over time.

Q: Isn’t this just an argument against big companies? A: No. It’s an argument for paying attention to who built your tools and why. A one-person team accountable to users is structurally different from a 50,000-person company accountable to shareholders. The software reflects that.



Want more thoughts on software craftsmanship, privacy, and building things that last?

Subscribe to the Basalt newsletter. No spam, no data selling, just practical takes from someone who actually builds stuff.