If I had to guess, I'd say you're an old school programmer, who perhaps starting programming in the 70's or 80's, and hasn't really kept up with modern technology. That's my guess anyway.
Anyway to reply...
Sure, other than arbitrary platform changes,
SQL Server has been around forever, and will be for quite a while to come. Both of the platforms I noted use SQL Server as a back end. Both are with stable, well-established companies (Microsoft and Amazon). I wouldn't expect any "arbitrary platform changes" from either of them anytime soon.
additional license fees
What additional license fees? There are none. You pay a service fee, that's all. No license fees.
unexpected snafus
Same is true of any system, even a private LAN. But if one needs a WAN, then having one used by thousands of users with some of the best techs in the industry maintaining it is a much more stable solution than other solutions.
the risk of outages
Yes, that's the drawback of hosting your data on the web. The upside is that you get to use your database the same as if it was local, without hokey workarounds. Plus, these sites have 99.9% uptime. Your local ISP's update may vary, though.
and a recurring monthly service charge forever
Yes, sometimes you have to pay for service. Amazon charges a very low fee, and only charges for the data/time you use. For someone like the OP, it would be a few dollars a month -- definitely worth it for someone to not have to hassle hokey workarounds. And Azure, I believe is free for small data usages, such as the OP would have. So, not a huge issue here, if an issue at all.
When it comes to someone's secondary side business, I will always go for the most affordable, old school, simple methods.
When someone is a novice, they need simplicity, not complexity. While your method was "simple" in that it didn't require any web hosting, it was far more complex that simply storing one's data in the Cloud.
Tell me, which do you think is simpler: using the method you proposed, or simply building an Access database, then using Microsoft's conversion tool to port the back end to Azure, in the cloud, and just continuing to use the database as though the back end were local. To me, the latter seems far more simple, and is what I would recommend to a novice (and to anyone else for that matter).
It's surprising to me that I would be met with ridicule in an open forum like this.
I didn't ridicule you. I gave you a strongly worded post in opposition to what you proposed. Ridicule would have been mocking you, which I didn't do.
In any case, semantics aside, the tone of my post was based on that I don't like to see people misled. Had you simply proposed something that was a little off-base or which I disagreed with, my tone would have been totally different. But your post was so far off-base that I replied with outrage, rather than mere criticism. Because I don't like to see people misled.
If you don't like using Cloud services, then fine. But to tell someone that they should go in a different direction than what's best for them because it's something that you're more comfortable with, well, that's just wrong.
If you had just offered a different approach, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But to tell someone they SHOULDN'T use the other approach, well, that's just wrong, in my opinion. Specifically, your comment:
If everyone needs to be inside the database at the same time, in the same dataset, and also to be able to see all of each other's changes instantly, you're going to have a bit of a hard time.
was completely wrong. It's actually quite simple. To say, "Hey, if you prefer to not use the Cloud, here's another approach," would be fine. But to steer someone AWAY from using the cloud, telling them it will be difficult to do, when it's actually quite simple, is just wrong and misleading.
And setting up the kind of solution you suggested (with export and import files) would be far, far more complicated to create than simply porting the back end to the Cloud!
It would take a decently skilled developer a while to put together, likely require some recurring expenses to keep running, and will probably cost a lot
Again, completely wrong (except the part about recurring expenses).
So, it wasn't your solution, per se, that evoked my response. It was the misleading information you were giving about Cloud services meant to steer him away from what I consider to be the ideal solution for him, coupled with offering an outdated, complicated, and less-than-ideal solution, that did.