zlacker

[parent] [thread] 19 comments
1. overfe+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 22:59:41
> We are certainly closer now to being able to prototype and go to market faster with a product.

What are the higher-order effects when anyone can do this, and *aaS becomes a market for Lemons?

replies(8): >>trhway+x3 >>mym199+59 >>Bewelg+wd >>Gorbac+zd >>cyanyd+le >>hinkle+pt >>lumost+Lw >>dizlex+yx
2. trhway+x3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 23:19:58
>>overfe+(OP)
in the 90-ies anyone could easily prototype with tools like Access (and all the other "4GL" tools which were similarly all the rage back then). That still didn't preclude companies from buying their major software from software vendors instead of doing it themselves.

In some sense having customer able to prototype what they want is a good thing. I did it myself as i was at the time on that side, and having a quick-whip-it tool was a good thing to quickly get some feature that was missing in the major software before that major software would add it (if at all). (And if one remembers for example Crystal Reports - while for "reports", it and the likes were in many senses such quick-whip-it tools for a lot of such customization that was doable by the customer.)

So, after initial aftershock - "Ahhhh, we don't need software companies anymore!" - we'll get to the state with software companies still doing their thing just with a lot of AI as specialization is one of the main thing in modern economy and AI becomes most powerful tools of the trade. (and various AI components themselves will be part of software delivery, like say a very fine-tuned model (hosted or on-premise) specific to the customer and software - Clippy on steroids)

(Of course some companies wouldn't survive the transition just like some companies didn't survive the transitions to client/server, cloud, etc. while some new companies will emerge like Anthropic has today or Borland had at the time)

replies(1): >>sevens+Si
3. mym199+59[view] [source] 2026-02-04 23:57:10
>>overfe+(OP)
I think that just because anyone can do it, doesn't mean they will. Lots of people have really great ideas but very few actually commit to execution. Ultimately ROI will go down, deincentivizing the commercialization of that thing someone wanted to bang out in a weekend.

In the very long term, software will become a commodity, as you mentioned. Process and workflow may move into JIT delivery for the need at hand, in theory the data layer will be comprehensive and clean and the days of clicking around a bunch of stuff to fulfill process needs will move into a lower latency activity like...talking to your agent.

I saw a quote today by Brian Eno(1995) that said: "So the question becomes not whether you can do it or not, because any drudge can do it if they're prepared to sit in front of the computer for a few days; the question then is: of all the things you can now do, which do you choose to do?" and it resonated with me a lot.

replies(1): >>Secret+tb
◧◩
4. Secret+tb[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:11:33
>>mym199+59
> Lots of people have really great ideas but very few actually commit to execution.

This is true when you had to work hard for those ideas. Now you have LLMs. It means more people can sling a lot more crap at walls with fewer barriers to entry.

replies(2): >>doctor+Yi >>bawolf+Lj
5. Bewelg+wd[view] [source] 2026-02-05 00:26:44
>>overfe+(OP)
It's not a market for lemons. We can share info about the lemons and all choose to use the good ones. There's no information asymmetry.
replies(1): >>justin+Zx
6. Gorbac+zd[view] [source] 2026-02-05 00:27:11
>>overfe+(OP)
If you can gin these things up in a weekend then why would you bother with a monthly subscription model for software? The only valuable part is the specification and possibly the hardware to run it. If I were a CTO trying to save money I might pay for the labor to develop good specs, but I would prioritize getting out from under software companies with a rent seeking models and 80 to 90% margins
replies(1): >>bawolf+8k
7. cyanyd+le[view] [source] 2026-02-05 00:32:45
>>overfe+(OP)
It means the same: random lottery of mass, with everuone else failing.

American capitalism hides the depressing fact that rarely does the best succees.

AAI momentum is parallel to just buying lottery tickets and doing so with the belief that you know the real odds, so one can overwhelm with quantity of tickets.

◧◩
8. sevens+Si[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:08:31
>>trhway+x3
Access is not as dead as you might hope. The long tail of internal tools written with Access continues to shamble along. I had to figure out how to dump MDB files on Windows last year for just this reason. As an industry I think we often fail to grasp how much outsider art there is, in the form of internal departmental tools.

LLM coding is going to create a cambrian explosion of these tools. It’s going to be very interesting to see the remnants of this wave 30 years down the line.

replies(1): >>trhway+tk
◧◩◪
9. doctor+Yi[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:09:40
>>Secret+tb
here's reality before claude:

- nearly every enterprise IT project is a failure anyway

- "can i do this for free?" savvy people write "thing i don't want to pay for github".

- ??? "stupid smelly nerds!" (https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1at9br4)

okay, what was the actual obstacle? it's really simple: in order to use something FREE, you had to touch GITHUB, which meant GIT. and people hate git.

today, with LLMs:

- "can i do this for free?"

- LLM dutifully does the needful, using projects it finds and code it learned from github, and doing the prosaic tasks of launching them for you, whatever that means.

people are getting way up into their heads about what matters, psychosocial and management and whatever bs. chatgpt is FREE. it will fix your problems for FREE. people will put up with ANYTHING for FREE.

the real innovation is laundering all that inaccessible, pre-existing solution space into a format that doesn't require transiting git and giving it away for free.

don't believe me? all of the most profitable SaaS businesses in technology are the packaging, deployment and customization of pre-existing open source free software, whether it is linux, kvm, postgres, etc. they are factories to turn stuff that is inaccessible because it is in GIT, which SUCKS - that is the hard part for people to wrap their minds around, that GIT sucks - into websites you can pay for. now LLMs do that.

◧◩◪
10. bawolf+Lj[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:17:24
>>Secret+tb
Good execution doesn't get easier with an LLM.
replies(1): >>gritsp+3C
◧◩
11. bawolf+8k[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:19:31
>>Gorbac+zd
> If I were a CTO trying to save money

A CTOs job isn't to save money but to spend money effectively. Saving money by increasing risk is not neccesarily a prudent move.

replies(1): >>edoceo+ss
◧◩◪
12. trhway+tk[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:22:41
>>sevens+Si
One of the key questions here - will LLM coding decrease the proliferation of app-specific Excel files (by for example accelerating and simplifying Excel-to-webapp conversion) or would result in an opposite outcome by making feasible managing even orders of magnitude more of those disparate Excel files :)
replies(1): >>sevens+pv
◧◩◪
13. edoceo+ss[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 02:28:55
>>bawolf+8k
On prudent choices: one thing I'm surprised about is that LLMs are showing me libraries and tools that I'd not found via search.

A boring one from today was about select, datalist or some custome element (which LLM can prototype) or some JS libs. Good breakdown; links to playgrounds, rough mocks so team could kick tires. It raises points the team had and had counterpoint to help drive decisions.

14. hinkle+pt[view] [source] 2026-02-05 02:37:30
>>overfe+(OP)
Exactly. Once the market tastes like lemonade, everyone will be afraid of trying new apps in the way that they are afraid to accept phone calls from unknown numbers now.

You will trade initial development budget for advertising budget, trying to position your product in proximity with people who are known quantities.

◧◩◪◨
15. sevens+pv[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 02:54:50
>>trhway+tk
I wouldn’t bet against cramming more and more business processes into Excel. The guy who was copying cells from one workbook to another yesterday, tomorrow can have a single mega-workbook with all the macros more or less deconflicted.
16. lumost+Lw[view] [source] 2026-02-05 03:08:03
>>overfe+(OP)
The history of software has been that once it becomes cheap enough for teams to flood the market with “existing product” + x feature for y users. The market consolidates around a leader who does all features for all customers.

I’d bet that we skip SaaS entirely and go to Anthropic directly. This means the ai has to understand that there are different users with conflicting requirements and that we all need the same exact copy of the burn rate report.

17. dizlex+yx[view] [source] 2026-02-05 03:14:32
>>overfe+(OP)
Tbh I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding the issue (or I am).

It’s not about some single dude disrupting the saas market. It’s about largish companies who already have internal dev teams, slowly weening their company off these ginormous one size fits all saas products and building local, tailored solutions.

It’s death by a thousand cuts from the erosion of their highest paying customers.

◧◩
18. justin+Zx[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 03:18:38
>>Bewelg+wd
> We can share info about the lemons

That might turn out to be less than reliable over time, as bots are already screwing up systems with fake information and it's probably going to get worse.

◧◩◪◨
19. gritsp+3C[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 03:54:29
>>bawolf+Lj
No, and I agree with the conservative sentiments here. However, putting together a SaaS alternative that frees up money during a crunch, and now with the pet features your boss has always wanted, is potent indeed.
replies(1): >>bruce5+7J
◧◩◪◨⬒
20. bruce5+7J[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 05:13:17
>>gritsp+3C
You've hit the nail on the head. Immediate gratification.

AI is like sugar. It tastes nice, gives you energy quickly - what's not to like? The gratification is immediate, and if "today is all that matters" it's brilliant.

The problem with sugar (and AI) is medium term. So sure, that junior dev whipped up the whole framework in ClaudeCode, and it's humming nicely. Junior dev gets credit, and after a couple years moves on somewhere else.

Then something changes. Windows. TLS. Code Signing, whatever. We need to update the program to the change. Just a small tweak. Junior Dev has gone (or is otherwise occupied) so we'll get new-Junior-dev to do it. Is he expected to do the change at the code level? Or at the prompt level? Will ClaudeCode in 2029 be able to maintain ClaudeCode Code from 2026? Or will it want to rewrite everything? Will new-junior-dev have the skillset to prompt as well as first-junior-dev? Was the code good enough that a dev could just "take it over"? Or was it "it works, let's use it" standard?

AI makes everyone look good in the short term. But it worries me for what happens in 5 years, 10 years, and so on. Sugar is great, but you can't live (long term) on sugar. Sometimes you need a proper meal plan.

[go to top]