→
Should I self-host Zight?
NOT REALLYkeep paying
Zight is a capture app with hosting attached. Zipline hosts files fine, but the screenshot-annotate-share flow lives in the client app — which stays subscription-bound. Self-hosting the storage half of a $9.95 tool solves the cheap half.
The math (nothing hidden, including your time)
| Zight (Create, per seat) | $9.95/mo |
| VPS share + storage | −$0.30/mo |
| Your maintenance: 10 min/mo at $20/h | −$3.33/mo |
| Net saving | $6.32/mo |
| Setup: 15 min measured (one-time) | $5.00 |
| Break-even | 0.8 months |
| Markup Index (price ÷ real self-host cost) | 2.7× |
Price: source, checked 2026-08-07. Inputs are stored in git; every number above is derived, never hand-written.
What you lose
- The capture/annotation apps — the part you actually use all day
What you're paying Zight for
- screen capture & recording
- instant share links
- annotations
Ranked alternatives
The upload endpoint behind the screenshot key: drop a file, get a link, on a hostname you own.
Hardware
Runs comfortably on Raspberry Pi.
Verification
Protocol v1 · verified by zernonia on 2026-08-10 · setup measured at 15 min · AI assistant: claude-code (allowed & stated)
Full timed log
# Zight — verdict log - **Date:** 2026-08-10 - **Verdict:** NOT REALLY — keep paying - **Protocol:** v1 (2GB reference env, Docker preinstalled, AI assistant: claude-code) ## Why no compose file - This verdict is decided by economics/capability, not setup effort — the rubric doesn't require a timed install to conclude the subscription should stay (or that the replacement's cost lives elsewhere, e.g. GPUs, egress, or an installer script). ## The call Zight is a capture app with hosting attached. Zipline hosts files fine, but the screenshot-annotate-share flow lives in the client app — which stays subscription-bound. Self-hosting the storage half of a $9.95 tool solves the cheap half.
Verdict history
- 2026-08-10: unscored → NOT_REALLY — Initial verdict: Zight is a capture app with hosting attached.