When NextJs Back when Next.js first hit the scene, its magical promises of zero-configuration SSR, file-based routing, and simple local development made it a perfect choice for both rapid prototyping and production-grade apps. But as my projects and the industry matured, other pressing concerns arose — concerns that have ultimately led me to depart from Next.js for production-level work.
Vercel, Next.js, and the Ecosystem Lock
Next.js is developed and maintained by Vercel, and although this partnership partially allowed a frictionless experience in local development, it also became the source of multiple issues:
Local vs. Deployment Differences: Locally, your Next.js thing might work without issues. However, even without any subsequent changes after we bootstrap our base project, we can suddenly run into dehydration issues (improper server state handling and client hydration) — not good! These problems are not obvious when testing locally but become a critical issue when you deploy your application.
Deployment Service Limitations: The sending limit is designed to be run on Vercel, and using another service for deployment uncovers a surprise hill. Vercel’s proprietary optimizations — like image optimization and serverless functions — don’t adapt well to other platforms and result in widely inconsistent performance and functionality.
Cost and Vendor Lock-In: The pricing model of Vercel can become a bottleneck quickly. But every member above that will still cost you, despite the team and enterprise plans. For scaling companies, the cost of scaling on Vercel can become crippling to growth, especially when you have to pay per user instead of just scaling your infrastructure.
Next Loss of Developer Control is 13 and Beyond
The evolution from Next.js 12 to 13 (and beyond) hasn’t been without growing pains.
Early and Unstable Version Updates: Vercel now applies version updates, which include Next.js 14 and 15 — far too early. While Vercel refers to the current versions as “stable,” like many developers in the community, I have seen continuous problems such as erratic caching behavior, dehydration mismatches, and high barriers to productivity in newer features like Server Actions.
Dogmatic, Opinionated Conventions: Next. The file- and folder-based routing system has strict one-to-one connections between your project’s organization and routing logic + data fetching methods. The interdependence of this concern means that making even simple changes can have a domino effect, exacerbating the lack of flexibility and slowing down development.
Less Customization: As of Next.js 13+, the framework handles a lot of the underlying operations for you. Though abstractions are beneficial for swift development, they replace a finer granularity of control that a lot of seasoned developers require to improve or troubleshoot production problems.
Production Realities Versus Marketing Hype
For beginners, Next.js tutorials, Vercel’s marketing machine, and plain old excessive “how-to” guides can give you the impression that building a Next.js app is a breeze. However, the reality when it comes to production applications is a different story.
Dehydration and State Management Woes: Without large code changes, you can still run into dehydration problems where server-rendered state doesn’t rehydrate properly on the client. Sometimes they affect “invisible” bugs that affect production environments.
No Core Feature Return Types: Every fetch, mutation, or API call needs to be written the “Next‑ey” way. This means writing code that needs to work correctly on the server and the client. This dual-mode requirement places developers into rigidly constrained patterns even when a simpler approach would suffice.
Not the One‑Size‑Fits‑All for Production: Marketing materials frequently advertise Next. JS is considered the best full-stack solution, but its opinionated approach in practice means it’s not going to be the best fit for every single use case. For large enterprise systems or even fast-moving startups, inflexibility and hidden complexity can patch innovation in place rather than allow it to move quickly.
Why instead I suggest Remix or Vite SSR
In light of the challenges, I started to look around for alternatives. Here’s the reason I chose Remix and Vite SSR.
More Flexibility and Control: Remix (and similar frameworks) cloud the web fundamentals much less. Where other frameworks may force you to build entities with file-based conventions or use opaque caching mechanisms, Remix takes a less “magical” approach that allows you to retain control over your application’s architecture.
Easier, Faster Developer Experience: Vite with built-in SSR support has extraordinary build and hot‑reload performance. This thinner configuration does not incur the overhead experienced in Next.js, allowing you to write application code instead of fighting with your build tooling.
Real-World Adoption by Top Enterprises: Interest from the biggest players (the team behind ChatGPT, for example) has moved the needle towards migration away from Next.js to Remix. When you see companies with the demands of production-grade systems changing their frameworks in order to get better performance, it’s an indication that the “easy” choice could lead to long-term pain.
Final Thoughts
Next.js was, and probably still is for a lot of people that have recently started, an excellent tool when it all broke. It kicked off a recent wave of server‑side React development and raised the question of what a full‑stack framework could offer. However, as the framework has matured — particularly with Vercel keeping a close watch on it — the growing complexity, cost concerns, and loss of developer control have made it ever less appealing.
If you are new to this, please do not be blinded by only the ease of usage and marketing UI of Next.js. In production, these silent traps will waste your time, your money, and give you awful nightmares. Instead of jumping straight to Next.js, I highly recommend looking into other solutions like Remix or even Vite SSR. Some big names, including ChatGPT, already transitioned — and their experiences say a lot.
The framework you choose should free you rather than inhibit your creativity. It was the hardest thing for me to leave Next. JS has resulted in a leaner, more maintainable, and more predictable development cycle — a change that I think will pay dividends in terms of production performance and long‑term scalability.
Have you encountered similar problems? If you’ve sought alternatives and found them, share what you tried and how it broke out for your projects.
No comments: