Postman was free. Then it added premium tiers. Then it moved core features behind paywalls. Then it required cloud sync for everything. Then it started sunsetting features entirely unless you upgraded.
Insomnia followed the same path. Thunder Client is heading there now. If you've used API testing tools for more than two years, you've watched this pattern play out at least once.
The question isn't why companies monetise. It's why they systematically degrade the tools developers rely on after gaining market share.
The Adoption-Then-Extraction Playbook
Step one: build a genuinely good free tool. Make it fast, local-first, no account required. Developers love it. Word spreads. Market share grows.
Step two: add premium features that don't break the core experience. Team sync, advanced workflows, integrations. Fair enough - enterprises pay for collaboration tools.
Step three: move essential features behind the paywall. Collections that used to be local now require cloud sync. Environments that used to be free now need a paid plan. The free tier becomes a demo, not a tool.
Step four: make the free tier so limited it's unusable. Request limits drop. Export options disappear. Local storage gets deprecated in favour of cloud-only accounts. If you want to keep using the tool you've relied on for years, you pay.
The analysis tracks this pattern across Postman, Insomnia, and Thunder Client. All three started as beloved developer tools. All three ended up extracting value from their user base by degrading the free experience.
Why Developers Are Migrating to Local-First Tools
The backlash is real. Developers are moving to Hoppscotch, Bruno, and Invoke - tools that prioritise local-first workflows and don't require accounts for basic functionality.
Local-first matters because API testing involves sensitive data. Authentication tokens, internal endpoints, staging environment credentials - none of this should leave your machine unless you explicitly choose to sync it. Cloud-first tools treat your data as their data by default. Local-first tools treat your data as yours.
The other reason is sustainability. When a tool's business model depends on cloud infrastructure, every feature becomes a cost centre. The company needs to push users toward paid plans to cover hosting. That creates pressure to degrade the free tier.
Local-first tools don't have that pressure. Storage is on your machine. Sync is optional. The business model can focus on premium features that genuinely add value - team collaboration, CI/CD integrations, advanced testing frameworks - without crippling the core tool.
A Practical Checklist for Choosing API Tools
Before adopting any API tool, ask these questions:
1. Does it work offline? If the tool requires internet access for basic functionality, you're dependent on their servers. And their pricing.
2. Can you export your data? Collections, environments, history - if you can't export everything in a standard format, you're locked in.
3. Is local storage the default? Cloud sync should be opt-in, not mandatory. Your API requests shouldn't leave your machine unless you choose to share them.
4. What's the free tier actually capable of? If the free version has request limits, user limits, or feature restrictions that would block your current workflow, assume those limits will tighten over time.
5. How does the company make money? If the business model isn't clear, or if it relies entirely on converting free users to paid plans, expect enshittification.
The Bigger Pattern
This isn't just about API tools. It's about developer tooling in general. The same pattern plays out with code editors, terminal emulators, Git clients, and database tools. Free and great, then monetised, then degraded, then abandoned by the developers who made it popular.
The solution isn't to avoid commercial tools - sustainable businesses matter. The solution is to choose tools built on models that don't require extracting value from free users.
Local-first, open-core, one-time-purchase, transparent pricing - these models align incentives. The company succeeds when the tool gets better, not when the free tier gets worse.
For now, the migration is happening. Developers are voting with their workflows. The question is whether the next generation of API tools learns from this, or repeats the same cycle.