"What if we want to move off your hosting?"
You take the code and go. There's no export fee and no clause that makes it painful. You've had repository access since the first commit, so there's nothing to hand over that you don't already hold.
Ownership, hosting, backups, code, people
Five commitments: you own what we build; it's hosted on our infrastructure, not a stranger's; backed up daily; you get the source code; and it's built by someone with 22 years in IT, not 22 months on the AI gold rush. All five are contractual, not marketing.
Not a licence. Not a seat. Ownership of the thing that gets built, assigned to you on payment of the final invoice. The wording is as plain as it sounds: The client owns it once it is paid for.
The clause matters more than the sentiment. Ask any vendor to show you theirs. Why this is unusual: the standard model is you rent access to something you helped pay to build, forever, and if you stop paying you lose it. That's a good business for the vendor. It's a bad deal for you — and it's the reason how we charge has no per-seat line on it.
Your system runs on our own infrastructure across three locations — not on a reseller's shared box, and not on an account somebody set up with a personal credit card.
Hetzner, Helsinki and Hetzner, Singapore run client application servers. NextDC, Australia is there for engagements that need Australian data residency. Backups are cross-replicated between all three, with a further copy held outside that estate entirely.
| Frequency | Every 3 hours, plus a daily snapshot |
|---|---|
| Location | Cross-replicated between all regions, plus an offsite copy outside that estate |
| Last restore test | 31 August 2026 |
| Measured uptime | 100% over 11 months |
| Response commitment | 2 hours |
Publishing the date forces us to keep doing it. Two honest caveats on the row above it: eleven months is a short window to claim 100% from, and a two-hour response commitment is a commitment to respond, not to have fixed it.
Repository access from the first commit, held on the Kindra client server (Singapore) and NextDC (Australia). Not at the end, not on request, not after final payment.
You can hand it to another developer at any point. We'd rather you didn't, but the option existing is what makes the relationship honest — and it's the same reasoning behind the two-week increments described in how an engagement runs.
22 years in IT. Three businesses built and sold. The AI part is recent — the systems part isn't. This one's hard to verify from a website, so verify it elsewhere: the dates and the businesses are set out on the about page, ABN 38 697 207 917 is on ABN Lookup, and Michael's history is on LinkedIn.
The question behind every other question on this page. Most of what we build makes no external call at all. Where an AI step is genuinely warranted, exactly one payload crosses the boundary — and it isn't your database.
Rules-based automation — most of what we build
No external call is made at all. Your systems, your database and the joinery we build all sit inside our infrastructure, and the work happens entirely there. Nothing crosses.
With an AI step — where judgement is needed
Exactly one thing crosses: the specific text a model has to read, such as the body of a supplier invoice. Not your database, not your customer list, not your file store. Which provider, and what its terms allow it to do with that payload, is set for your engagement and named in your contract.
What we do not claim
Kindra has not been assessed against the Australian Privacy Principles. No audit, no certification, no third-party attestation. If another vendor tells you they are "APP compliant", ask who assessed them and when — it is a question with a checkable answer.
What is actually true
Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, backups are cross-replicated and tested, and Australian data residency is available. Those are architecture facts you can put to us and to your own adviser. They are not the same thing as an assessment, and we won't describe them as one.
We're also not going to tell you what your own obligations are. Whether the Privacy Act binds you depends on your turnover, your sector and the kind of information you hold, the small-business threshold has been under active reform, and a software firm guessing at that on a web page is exactly the sort of confident wrong answer this page exists to avoid. Ask your own adviser, or check the current position directly with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
What we will do is tell you on the Leak Check if your obligations look like they need assurances we can't give — health records, government supply, anything where an assessment is a precondition. That's a short conversation and it saves us both a proposal. It's the same filter as the work we decline.
You take the code and go. There's no export fee and no clause that makes it painful. You've had repository access since the first commit, so there's nothing to hand over that you don't already hold.
Rules-based automation makes no external model call at all, and most of what we build is rules-based. Where an AI step is warranted, the provider and the terms governing that payload are set for your engagement and named in your contract — not chosen by us and applied to everyone.
100% measured over 11 months, with a 2 hours response commitment. Eleven months is a short window and a small firm is not a 24/7 operations centre. If you need a contractual overnight SLA, we're not it.
You have the code and you have your data. Any competent developer can pick it up. The system keeps running until someone chooses to turn it off, and that someone is you. That's not a nice-to-have — it's the reason commitment one exists.
20 minutes. We find where the money's going. No pitch.
Book a free Leak Check