zlacker

>>jnord+(OP)
I'm CTO at a vertical SaaS company, paired with a product-focused CEO with deep domain expertise. The thesis doesn't match my experience.

For one thing, the threat model assumes customers can build their own tools. Our end users can't. Their current "system" is Excel. The big enterprises that employ them have thousands of devs, but two of them explicitly cloned our product and tried to poach their own users onto it. One gave up. The other's users tell us it's crap. We've lost zero paying subscribers to free internal alternatives.

I believe that agents are a multiplier on existing velocity, not an equalizer. We use agents heavily and ship faster than ever. We get a lot of feedback from users as to what the internal tech teams are shipping and based on this there's little evidence of any increase in velocity from them.

The bottleneck is still knowing what to build, not building. A lot of the value in our product is in decisions users don't even know we made for them. Domain expertise + tight feedback loop with users can't be replicated by an internal developer in an afternoon.

>>benzib+xN
As told in Innovator's Dilemma mainframe companies would have told the exact same story right up until the cheaper alternative met all of their core needs. But in this case I don't think you get disrupted by copycats but instead by savvy business users building their own disposable alternatives which get just enough done.

Though I think one thing that is being overlooked is that Platforms are the hidden hero under all of this. A lot of AI products are benefiting from various cloud platforms that have been created that make it easy to deploy and opperate these apps. So as long as you are providing a sufficiently general, high productivity platform that can't be emulated by one of the major vendors you'll likely become the new runtime.