Why Companies Are Parting Ways with Next.js - The Reasons

Why Leave Next.js?

Next.js has gained significant popularity for building modern web applications, offering features like server-side rendering and static site generation.

However, despite its widespread adoption, some companies and developers eventually decide to move away from Next.js. This section explores the common reasons behind these decisions, looking at factors that might lead an organization to seek alternative solutions for their projects.

Complexity Issues

Many companies find that building and maintaining applications with Next.js can become increasingly complex as projects grow. While Next.js offers powerful features like server-side rendering and static site generation, integrating these can add layers of complexity to the development workflow.

Managing the different rendering strategies (SSR, SSG, ISR) and understanding their implications for data fetching, caching, and state management requires a deep understanding of the framework. This can be particularly challenging for teams new to Next.js or those with varying levels of expertise.

The framework's opinionated nature, while beneficial for getting started, can also make it difficult to deviate from its recommended patterns or integrate with certain third-party libraries without encountering complications. Customizing webpack or Babel configurations, for instance, might be necessary but adds another layer of complexity that requires specialized knowledge.

Debugging can also become more involved due to the server and client environments. Tracing issues across these different layers requires specific tools and techniques, potentially slowing down development and troubleshooting processes.

Vendor Dependence

One of the key reasons companies look to move away from Next.js is the potential for vendor dependence, particularly on Vercel. While Next.js is open-source, its development is heavily influenced by Vercel, and many of its integrated features and best practices are optimized for deployment on the Vercel platform.

This close relationship can lead to a degree of vendor lock-in. Companies leveraging Vercel-specific features like serverless functions, edge functions, or certain deployment workflows might find it challenging to migrate their application to a different hosting provider without significant refactoring.

Relying heavily on a single vendor for framework development and hosting can limit flexibility and autonomy. If a company needs features or infrastructure options not readily available or optimally supported by Vercel, they might face limitations or increased complexity in their architecture.

For some organizations, maintaining control over their infrastructure and avoiding reliance on a single external vendor is a critical consideration. This desire for greater control and the ability to choose best-of-breed services independently can be a strong driver for exploring alternatives to a Next.js application tied closely to the Vercel ecosystem.

Slow Build Times

One frequent concern developers encounter with Next.js, especially as applications grow in size and complexity, is the increase in build times.

As a project expands with more pages, components, and dependencies, the time it takes to build the application can become noticeably longer. This can interrupt the development workflow.

Slow builds mean developers spend more time waiting for changes to compile and refresh, reducing productivity and making quick iterations challenging. This waiting period can be a significant factor for teams considering alternatives.

Cost Concerns

Companies sometimes find that using Next.js can lead to higher operational costs than anticipated. While the framework itself is free, the infrastructure needed to run Next.js applications efficiently, especially those using server-side rendering (SSR) or Incremental Static Regeneration (ISR), can become expensive.

Platforms optimized for Next.js, like Vercel, offer great developer experience but their pricing can scale up with usage, particularly concerning serverless function executions, bandwidth, and build times. For applications with high traffic or complex build processes, these costs can add up significantly.

Alternatively, self-hosting a Next.js application with SSR or ISR might require managing more complex server setups compared to a simple static site, leading to increased infrastructure and maintenance expenses. The need for dedicated resources or specialized hosting environments to handle dynamic rendering can be a factor in rising costs.

For businesses keeping a close eye on their budget, evaluating these potential infrastructure and hosting costs becomes important. Sometimes, a simpler architecture or a different framework might offer a more cost-effective solution depending on the project's specific needs and scale.

Better Options Appear

As the landscape of web development continues to evolve, other frameworks and approaches have matured significantly. Companies are discovering that compelling alternatives to Next.js now exist that might be a better fit for specific project requirements, team expertise, or architectural goals.

These options can sometimes offer advantages in areas where Next.js might be perceived to have drawbacks, such as complexity, vendor lock-in, or build performance for certain types of applications. Exploring these alternative solutions allows organizations to choose the technology stack that best aligns with their current needs and future vision.

Wrong Project Fit

Sometimes, the core nature of a project simply doesn't align well with Next.js's strengths and architectural patterns.

For applications that are predominantly client-side driven with minimal need for server-side rendering or static generation benefits, the added complexity of Next.js might be unnecessary. A simpler framework or even a vanilla JavaScript approach could be more suitable, leading to faster development cycles and easier maintenance.

Projects requiring very specific server configurations or low-level control over the HTTP request/response cycle might find Next.js's abstraction layers restrictive. While Next.js is flexible, breaking away from its conventions for highly customized server logic can introduce challenges.

Consider also projects with strict performance requirements where every millisecond counts and fine-grained optimization outside of Next.js's provided tools is critical. In such cases, a framework that offers more granular control over the build process and runtime might be preferred.

Team Expertise Gap

Adopting a new technology like Next.js requires the development team to have the necessary skills and experience. When a company decides to use Next.js without adequately training or hiring developers proficient in the framework, it can create a significant expertise gap.

This lack of familiarity can lead to several problems. Teams might struggle with core Next.js concepts, such as server-side rendering (SSR), static site generation (SSG), or API routes. Implementing features correctly becomes harder, potentially introducing bugs or performance issues that are difficult to debug.

Maintaining and scaling a Next.js application also requires specific knowledge. If the team lacks this expertise, they might face challenges in optimizing build times, managing deployments, or handling complex data fetching strategies. This can slow down development velocity and increase the time it takes to bring new features to market.

Furthermore, relying on a team with limited Next.js experience can increase costs. Companies might need to invest heavily in training, or face higher recruitment costs to attract experienced developers. If these investments don't bridge the gap effectively, the initial benefits of choosing Next.js might be outweighed by the ongoing challenges and expenses related to the team's skill level. Ultimately, for some companies, the expertise gap becomes a compelling reason to consider alternative solutions that better align with their team's existing capabilities or are simpler to manage.

Shifting Architecture

One significant reason companies move away from Next.js is a change in their core architectural strategy. As businesses evolve, their technical needs often shift, requiring different approaches to building and deploying applications.

Initially, Next.js might have been chosen for its integrated approach to server-side rendering, routing, and API routes, fitting a monolithic or tightly coupled frontend/backend architecture. However, a strategic decision to move towards a different pattern, such as microservices or micro frontends, can reveal limitations.

In a microservices architecture, where different parts of the application are independent services often built with various technologies, a comprehensive framework like Next.js for every small piece might feel overly complex or restrictive. Similarly, adopting a micro frontend approach could lead teams to prefer lighter libraries or frameworks for individual parts that integrate differently than Next.js naturally allows.

The need for greater flexibility or a different deployment model, perhaps favoring serverless functions or edge computing for specific parts of the application outside the typical Next.js deployment model, can also prompt a re-evaluation and eventual departure from the framework for certain projects or the entire platform.

More Control

One significant factor driving companies away from Next.js is the desire for greater control over their application's architecture and development process.

While Next.js provides a structured way to build React applications with features like file-system routing and server-side rendering out-of-the-box, this convenience comes with certain conventions and abstractions. For some teams, these abstractions can feel limiting, especially when they have specific or complex requirements that don't align perfectly with the framework's built-in patterns.

Companies with unique server setups, custom build pipelines, or the need to deeply integrate specific technologies might find Next.js's opinionated structure restrictive. They may prefer a more foundational library like React itself, combined with other tools, to build a setup tailored precisely to their needs.

This allows for more fine-grained control over aspects such as routing logic, server configuration, middleware implementation, and the integration of various libraries and tools without working around the framework's defaults.

People Also Ask for