We have become accustomed to software weighing more and more. We see it in applications that take time to download, in simple tools that come with too many layers and in services that promise convenience in exchange for take up more spaceconsume more resources and depend on more invisible parts. That is why it is striking that, in 2026, when much of the technological conversation revolves around AI and increasingly ambitious systems, there are those who claim an idea that seems to have come from another era.
The initiative is called Fits on a Floppy and is part of a manifesto published by developer Matt Sephton. Its rule is as simple as it is striking: an application that wants to show off its badge must have a total download size of less than 1.44 MB, the capacity of a classic 3.5-inch floppy disk. The text itself summarizes it with a direct phrase, “the software has lost its way”, but its proposal is not to miss the physical support, but to recover the discipline that was imposed by working within very narrow limits.
For a long time, making software was also about giving up. If something was not necessary, was left outbecause memory, storage and user patience had a very visible limit. Then came a different stage: the teams they began to have more margindownloads stopped feeling like an adventure, and the size of an app stopped being a central concern. There a dangerous door began to open.
The software has not gained weight by accident
Not all of that growth came from adding visible features. Much of it came underneath, in the form of layers that the user does not always see: libraries, engines, update systems, components designed to support more than one version of the same product and dependencies that allow progress to be made faster without solving each problem from scratch. That way of building makes sense in many cases, especially when you want to maintain the same product in several systems. But the scale also changes.
This is where the real value of Sephton’s proposal comes in. Fits on a Floppy is not trying to show that everything should be compressed to fit into 1.44 MB, but rather that an artificial restriction can serve to prioritize. If an app is born to solve a specific task, the manifesto asks that it download quickly, start without waiting, consume few resources, be native and avoid unnecessary dependencies. The underlying idea is simple: the less baggage a tool carries, the easier it is to understand what it does, why it does it, and how much it costs to maintain it.
The question, then, is whether this discipline can once again have a journey outside the manifesto. In some software, probably yes. We are not talking about browsers, video editors or services with integrated artificial intelligence, but rather small utilities, single-function tools and native applications that often do not need to carry a huge architecture. There Sephton’s argument is stronger: if the objective is limited, the size should also be limited. Not out of nostalgia, but because a simple tool has fewer excuses to behave like a full platform.
The other side of the story is that much of the software is not going to get smaller. Many current applications are no longer just a window with a specific function: they integrate accounts, synchronize data, offer real-time collaboration, work on multiple systems and they accumulate functions that were not part of a desktop application years ago. All of this may be justified, but it weighs. That’s why the promise of returning to lightweight software has clear limits. For many products, the real question will not be whether they can fit on a floppy disk, but whether they are growing out of necessity or accumulation.
The beauty of the floppy disk, in fact, is that it no longer seems reasonable. Precisely for this reason it forces us to look at the software from another place and ask ourselves if all that weight responds to a real need or to an accumulation that no one dared to review. Fits on a Floppy is not about stopping the evolution of modern tools or denying that many need to be big. Its usefulness lies elsewhere: reminding us that efficiency is also a design decision, and that the size of an application says something about how it was intended.
Images | Fernando Lavin
In | iOS 27 doesn’t leave any iPhone behind, but WatchOS 27 can’t say the same with Apple Watches
