zlacker

>>namany+(OP)
I'd actually say the opposite is the case. B2B (even SaaS) is probably the most robust when it comes to AI resistance. The described "in house vibe coded SaaS replacement" does not mirror my experience in B2B at all. The B2B software mindset I've encountered the most is "We'll pay you so we don't have to wrestle with this and can focus on what we do. We'll pay you even more if we worry even less." which is basically the opposite of...let's have someone inhouse vibe code and push to production. B2B is usually fairly conservative.

>>kriro+6K
I'm considering SaaS replacements with in house code in situations where my general thoughts are "how can this possibly be the pricing for this?" which is not uncommon.

>>colech+JM
Well before vibe coding, tons of open source software existed (and exists) to replace SaaS. With lots of features and knobs and real communities. But I still often pay for SaaS because managing it is a headache. Some human has to do it. I can pay the human or I can pay the company. I really don’t see how vibe coded toys can replace real battle tested SaaS products. A better explanation is the bubble in PE ratio is deflating and it’s happening all over, regressing to the mean. AI is a convenient explanation for everything

>>monero+SN
How many SaaS companies are public? How is that bubble deflating?

These are real risks to these companies.

Your in-house teams can build replacements, it's just a matter of headcount. With Claude, you can build it and staff it and have time left over. Then your investment pays dividends instead of being a subscription straight jacket you have to keep renting.

I think there's an even faster middle ground: open source AI-assisted replacements for SaaS are probably coming. Some of these companies might offer managed versions, which will speed up adoption.

>>echelo+YO
> Your in-house teams can build replacements, it's just a matter of headcount. With Claude, you can build it and staff it and have time left over. Then your investment pays dividends instead of being a subscription straight jacket you have to keep renting.

Lets take Figma as an example, Imagine you have 1000 employees, 300 of them need Figma, so you are paying 120k per year in Figma licenses. You can afford 1 employee working on your own internal Figma. you are paying the same but getting 100x worst experience, unless your 1 employee with CC can somehow find and copy important parts of Figma on his own, deploy and keep it running through the year without issues, which sounds ludicrous.

If you have less than 1000 employees it wouldnt even make sense to have 1 employee doing Figma

>>fallou+5Q
I mean, for that example there's even less to do: you just put your employees directly on Nano Banana or one of the simple Nano Banana wrappers.

If you need rich outputs, there are tools for that now too.

Let me put it another way - would you want to be Adobe or Figma right now?

And applied to the original point, would you feel comfortable being a SaaS company right now?

>>echelo+ec1
> you just put your employees directly on Nano Banana or one of the simple Nano Banana wrappers.

So you end up spending the money elsewhere? with exploratory design you can easily spend 10k a month on these models as a company of 1000, thus completely losing any monetary savings. Anyway you look at it, Saas worked because costs were spread out and low enough to not optimize it too much.