Show HN: Free, in-browser PDF editor

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Core capabilities & current issues

  • Tool is praised for being fast, simple, and running entirely in the browser, with form fields and signatures that work in common viewers.
  • Several early bugs were reported (unable to scroll, text wrapping mismatch, editing created text, embedded fonts rendering, encrypted PDFs, mobile signature issues, Tor Browser blank view); many were fixed quickly, others are acknowledged as TODOs.
  • Users want more text controls (fonts, bold/italic/underline, resizing text boxes), better selection/handles, and smoother pen input with coalesced events and pressure.

“Real” PDF editing is hard

  • Multiple comments explain that most “PDF editors” only overlay content; changing existing text is fundamentally difficult:
    • PDFs position glyphs at coordinates rather than storing flowing text blocks.
    • Fonts are often subsetted; characters needed for an edit may not be embedded.
    • The format is effectively append‑only; modifying streams requires recompression, offset fixing, and dealing with broken/underspecified files.
  • This complexity is compared to why there are few full Acrobat or MS Word replacements, and why high‑quality editors tend to be commercial.

Privacy, trust, and open source

  • A central attraction is “no upload / all in browser,” but multiple commenters say this promise is hard to trust without open source or an offline build.
  • Suggestions include: PWA or desktop/Electron version that explicitly runs offline, browser “offline mode,” or containers with blocked network access.
  • Some argue that open sourcing would greatly increase trust and longevity; others note that most end users can’t self‑host anyway.
  • There is debate over whether unminified client JS counts as “inspectable” versus truly open source.

Monetization and “enshitification” concerns

  • Currently runs on a cheap VPS; author states no VC backing and intention to keep core features free.
  • Monetization ideas discussed: Google Ads (criticized on privacy grounds), sponsorship, one‑time paid desktop/PWA with advanced features (OCR, templates, automation), or open‑core style premium add‑ons.
  • Users caution against bait‑and‑switch licensing and express desire for a stable, trustworthy, moderately priced utility rather than another subscription service.

Requested features & ecosystem context

  • Frequent requests: true text editing, redaction that actually removes content, flattening, comments, undo/redo, zoom, image/signature resize, TOC creation/editing, link preservation, compression, tables, OCR with searchable text, certificate‑based signatures, batch/flow operations (merge+compress+paginate).
  • Thread references many alternatives (Firefox PDF.js, Stirling PDF, PDF24, Xournal++, LibreOffice, Inkscape, Sejda, smallpdf, etc.) and related in‑browser/open‑source tools, underscoring unmet demand for a private, capable, user‑friendly PDF utility.