Second that. I will pay for the tool but not renting for serious work.

> Cool tech

I don't want to be a downer, but I think what they show is the kind of product that people expect from IT departments. I.e., bring a bunch of services together with some plumbing with a database below it, and a nice UI on top. This is all pretty standard. And with today's tools you can do that all in one day (see hackatons). Of course, when you start using the product, and the real requirements become clear, that one initial day seems like nothing.

I posit that this is largely due to your frame of reference. I will assume from your presence on hacker news that you already have learned programming. You are already familiar with its utility. You have found over your career that tools that sacrifice expressiveness for ease of expression are nearly always crutches, that if depended on too heavily, will foster reliance, and give no incentive to actually learn more advanced tools.

Yet, like all crutches, the provide a superior alternative to certain groups of people. People with broken legs use crutches, but only for the purpose of self sufficiency until their leg heals.

Perhaps this is where the flaw in the business model is revealed. Anvil is largely incentivized to get its users to depend on its crutch. But users are still able to utilize the crutch to ease the learning process, and perhaps explore something that might interest them enough to seek out more traditional development workflows.

Rental of goods exists as a viable service, because there is demand for its supply. When you fly somewhere distant, at least in the US, your first order of business is to pick up your rental car. This is not a bad business practice. You are making the correct judgement that given your limited resources, renting something in the short term is more prudent than purchasing it.