The only moat left is money?

2026-02-1816:07278383elliotbonneville.com

February 18, 2026 Every morning a few thousand people wake up and ship something. A tool, a SaaS, a newsletter, an app that does the thing the other app does but slightly differently. They post it on…

Every morning a few thousand people wake up and ship something. A tool, a SaaS, a newsletter, an app that does the thing the other app does but slightly differently. They post it on Hacker News. Nobody clicks.

This is not new. What's new is the scale. An AI can wake up (or whatever it does at 3am) and ship twelve of these before breakfast.

The value of human thinking is going down. You probably knew this. The corollary is rarely mentioned: the value of a human eyeball is going up, because there are only so many of them and there are now infinite things that want to be looked at.

Creation used to be the scarce thing, the filter. Now attention is. Most of us are on the wrong side of that trade.

Josh Pigford has been building things on the internet for 25 years. This is the first time he's said it feels hard:

When someone suggested the answer was marketing:

He's right. "Just do more marketing" assumes there's a channel open. Every channel I know of has gotten quietly worse. Search. Social. Newsletters. Communities. There's a thread on Hacker News right now called "Is Show HN dead? No, but it's drowning" — Show HN, the one place the internet was supposed to notice if you built something real.

One commenter:

One of the great benefits of AI tools, is they allow anyone to build stuff... even if they have no ideas or knowledge.

One of the great drawbacks of AI tools, is they allow anyone to build stuff... even if they have no ideas or knowledge.

Another: "The vibecoder hasn't done the interesting thing, they've pulled other people's interesting things."

The effort is gone. Effort was the filter.

I launched something last week. 14 people signed up — no ads, just a couple of posts. 14 real people who didn't have to. That number is tiny and it felt like something. Then I sat down to think about what it would take to grow it and I couldn't look at that math for very long.

The people winning mostly had a head start. Or they have money. Usually both.

When creation was hard, skill was the differentiator: you had to actually be good to make something worth showing. Now the barrier is near zero, so you need reach. Reach costs money or it costs years. Probably both.

Reach is also gravitational. Past some threshold it accumulates without you — posts find people, people find posts, the thing feeds itself. Below the threshold, identical effort produces nothing. Same quality, same idea, same work. Zero. Not because it was bad. Because you showed up on the wrong side of the line.

I don't know if we've already crossed a singularity on this, a point past which new entrants without existing reach or capital to buy it are effectively locked out. I think there's a real chance we have. The uncomfortable version: if you're not already moving, you might never take off.

The cost of acting like this is true when it isn't: you move fast and spend money you didn't need to spend.

The cost of acting like it isn't true when it is: permanent.

PS: The thing I launched last week is called Kith — a paid, invite-only social network where every person is verified human and there's no algorithm, no ads, no bots, and no AI. If that sounds like something you want to exist, join the waitlist.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By scoofy 2026-02-1819:0519 reply

    So, I really felt like more people should be reading Nassim Taleb's Incerto series of books. A lot of the issues that fall out of AI he dealt with in his books like ten years ago.

    He gives one the best pieces of advice I've ever heard: if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable.

    If you do something that isn't really scalable, like being a welder or a tailor, then you only have to compete against the tailors in your neighborhood, and you can easily find a neighborhood that doesn't have a tailor. If you're building a scalable product, you'll always be competing against the best, most well funded, smartest people in the room.

    Everyone here has grown up in the birth of the internet -- a once in ever event -- where building something scalable was just there for the taking. That's never going to exist again basically.

    • By ineedasername 2026-02-1819:552 reply

      That seems like reasonable advice until you realize you have no idea what will and will not scale in a few years, and there's only so many tailors/plumbers/welders/etc.

      What it really comes down to is these options as more work gets automated:

      1) New jobs doing different things that weren't done before

      2) Same jobs but shorter hours so "full time" with a salary to match starts to look more like 4 days, or 5 hours/day, or something.

      3) Lots of unemployment

      These can happen in a lot of different combinations, they can come wrapped up in different ways, and unequally for different segments of the workforce, but there's limited elasticity in most areas where additional people piling into the field would create more demand rather than glut the supply to the supplier's detriment.

      • By throwaway-11-1 2026-02-1822:022 reply

        I keep hearing about the potential of "new jobs" coming from ai but can anyone actually describe one? My gut says they will be something similar to converting middle class knowledge workers to do DoorDash drivers or trained artists becoming dog groomers. What a cool future, at least my parent's can watch racist ai slop videos on their iPads.

        • By moreOhthesame 2026-02-191:05

          [dead]

        • By Ntrails 2026-02-1822:551 reply

          It's simply a case of looking back and deciding this technical revolution is identical to the ones preceding it. Thus jobs destroyed will be replaced with new jobs, it always happens that way.

          Of course past performance is no guarantee of future success...

          • By tuatoru 2026-02-1823:025 reply

            > jobs destroyed will be replaced with new jobs

            Not for horses though, or at least not the majority of them. Some were kept as pets or essentially status objects. In this case we are the horses.

            • By laterium 2026-02-198:40

              95% of human farmers lost their jobs because of industrial revolution. What happened then? No jobs were created and we still have 95% unemployment, right?

            • By array_key_first 2026-02-192:51

              And glue, you forgot glue. Maybe we'll get the Matrix plot line where we become human glue. Or, uh, batteries.

            • By voisin 2026-02-190:481 reply

              > In this case we are the horses.

              This is assuming the conclusion. The entire question is whether we are the horses or every other example of humans in the past who found other employment that was inconceivable previous to the technological revolution that rendered their old job irrelevant.

              • By Gud 2026-02-195:46

                But you are ignoring the substantial difference between previous technical revolutions, this time technology not replacing a mechanical operation.

            • By navane 2026-02-1912:54

              Horses don't pay tax. The reason we have jobs is to pay tax.

            • By eli_gottlieb 2026-02-193:351 reply

              Horses couldn't revolt.

              • By jondwillis 2026-02-194:00

                And we won’t. Uber Eats Burger Reich and all.

      • By scoofy 2026-02-1820:133 reply

        The point of doing something non-scalable is that you can enter and exit the market fairly easily. You don't need to be a tailor your whole life. You can make a living as a barber, electrician, teacher, or nurse.

        I'm not saying it's easy! It's hard as hell. It sucks when your job gets automated. I'm just saying that aiming for something non-scalable means you're not always tilting at windmills, and the game can't be rigged against you.

        • By noosphr 2026-02-1820:592 reply

          Switching jobs from electrician to teacher to nurse will take around 3 to 5 years of education or apprenticeship in most countries. It also requires new licenses or certificates if you ever move country.

          • By scoofy 2026-02-1821:121 reply

            I'm trying to respond to this stuff in good faith. Yes, I agree with you. I don't see how this is relevant to the argument. If you are in a non-scalable industry that gets taken over by technology, that sucks. My point was being in the startup game in the first place.

            "Becoming a teacher" takes years.

            "Becoming a successful scalable business" has no known time frame. It either happens or it doesn't. And whether it does is not particularly correlated to how much time or effort you spend on it.

            • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1821:231 reply

              Almost typed the same thing in different words at the same time :)

              Your above point can not be upvoted enough.

              You do have to wonder what some people are thinking ;)

              Good message from Taleb too, he may not be the most likeable or agreeable person in the world, but he is quite brilliant at synthesizing logical meaning from the inputs he does have.

              • By scoofy 2026-02-1821:381 reply

                People not liking Taleb and then dismissing him because he can be rude has always been one of the strangest things that so many people do.

                I remember about halfway through Skin in the Game, after being put off by most of what I'd been reading, that the gestalt shift happened and it finally clicked. It's probably one of the best texts I've ever read on a specific type of conservatism. I don't like that I agreed with it, but the guy makes a very, very convincing argument.

                • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1822:50

                  Where would we be without Linus anyway ;)

          • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1821:17

            >Switching jobs from electrician to teacher to nurse

            The point is not to do that ever.

            Just gain one of the skills like that and plant it firmly on your resume, before trying anything more risky.

            Like starting a business, which might not actually cost as much or take as long to get a license.

            And with no further delay needed before any future pivots, when you might need quick alternatives most.

            Even if you only go back to teaching for a while to regroup.

        • By XorNot 2026-02-1820:574 reply

          All of those professions you've listed require about half a decade of dedicated training to be legally allowed to practice. For example an electrician takes like 7 years to become qualified, that's a full time apprenticeship, and it pays badly in the meantime.

          A fact endlessly annoying to electrical engineers who legally can design their houses power system but not work on it.

          (I mean I think a barber is quicker, but one of that list is also not like the others)

          • By sarchertech 2026-02-1823:13

            There are a lot of code issues you can run into when actually installing and repairing wiring that your average EE wouldn’t know much about at all. And just because you can design the power system for a building doesn’t mean you have any how to fish romex through a wall.

            That’s like saying a mechanical engineer should necessarily be able to work as a machinist. Some of them can for sure, but it’s not something they are required to learn.

            Also in many places anyone can do electrical work on their own house.

          • By scoofy 2026-02-1821:09

            I'm not trying to say 'everything is fine, nothing bad is happening a world of recurring technology and industrial revolutions.' It's not. The way things are set up is bad.

            My point is the author writes a column about how GPTs are ruining the ability for people to make scalable products, because when everyone can make one, nobody cares... my point is that that's not the result of GPTs. It's a result of survivorship bias skewing how we look at things.

            When your business is a flywheel than needs to be running to provide a benefit to each user, then getting that flywheel running is a huge problem. The vast majority of non-scalable businesses, almost by definition, provide each customer with a benefit regardless of whether anyone else uses it. That is how you create basic, word-of-mouth, free "earned" marketing.

          • By nsxwolf 2026-02-191:32

            Half a decade is over in a flash. The current software engineering downturn is almost 3 years old now.

          • By RGamma 2026-02-198:30

            > For example an electrician takes like 7 years to become qualified

            Using a similar playbook for what happened to SE (loads of good ~free info, bootcampification) you can drastically reduce the time to be economically useful, but that can only go for so long due to saturation. Especially residential electric work (or other trades) is no witchcraft that would require anywhere near several years of education/practice. And yeah, the legal system would have to cooperate, which will only happen when the pressure becomes high enough (see e.g. debates around "Meisterpflicht" in Germany).

            That said if AI continues to progress like it currently does we may not get to that part.

    • By mrkpdl 2026-02-1822:03

      I used to look at my local dry cleaner and think that it had to be the most stable business going - it couldn’t be replaced by a computer. Then Covid hit, work from home took off, and the dry cleaner went out of business. Computers came for the dry cleaner, not by cleaning clothes but by eliminating the need for dress codes.

    • By laffOr 2026-02-1820:113 reply

      Being a tailor is scalable, that's way there are way, way more cheap machine produced clothes today than in the past. Surely he did not miss that the textile industry was at the core of industrial revolution. So being a tailor is more like a post-scaling job - the automation has already happened and now there are only remnants left.

      But how can you be sure a job is peak-automated? A few years ago, I would have said musicians are post-scaling - way fewer musicians jobs now that you can play recorded music. But it looks like generative AI will hit musicians again. Can some of welding be automated? Probably.

      • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1821:02

        >how can you be sure a job is peak-automated?

        Probably the best way is to spend a few years working for a company where you can get a better picture whether it seems that way or not.

      • By scoofy 2026-02-1820:244 reply

        I mean a tailor who adjusts clothes and occasionally makes something bespoke.

        Tailors typically operate a launderette and act as middlemen to a local dry cleaner.

        I’m not talking about a fancy man making clothes for rich people, I’m talking about the talented old lady in you neighborhood who adjusts your clothing for $50 and runs a wash and fold.

        • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1820:57

          >Can some of welding be automated?

          Huge amounts have been doing it for decades.

          Manual work pays better than ever though.

          And plenty of alterations going on all the time after all the automation dust had settled manufacturing most fashions, a lot less manual work is of course being done but it's still everywhere. You do have to be good or you're not going to do half as well as you could though.

          The thing is, automation should be expected to slow or stall sooner or later, automation's not suitable for every little bit of welding or sewing that needs to keep going on. Only the most suitable, of course ;)

          These are just random examples, if you want to make absolutely sure you won't be automated away by the internet, build a valuable skill that doesn't depend on the internet at all, nor look anywhere near the places where automation is emerging that it wasn't doing before.

          If you eventually figure out how to automate that skill it would be something.

          Just like the internet though, there can be extra credit for being first :)

          One of the most valuable things to be able to build single-handedly is something that can not be mass-produced by any stretch of the imagination.

          You might stick with that alone, or pivot to something with more of a financial upside, but you would always have something to fall back on if needed. Plus give you less worry about taking financial risks than you would have been, considering the same resources and/or capital to work with.

          And on a regular basis revisit how far you can stretch your imagination to see if your baseline fallback still doesn't look like it will ever be automated in a way that would effect you.

        • By laffOr 2026-02-1821:21

          Yes, but this is simply the remnants of the old tailor occupation, post automation. The talented old lady would have had a lot more business in clothes making in the past, no need for a wash & fold.

        • By hn_acc1 2026-02-1821:202 reply

          My mom altered clothing when I was younger - and she darned socks too. My M-I-L still sews the occasional seam for pants that are too long and were cut for my wife or daughters.

          But me? I buy a pair of $30 jeans at Costco. If they don't fit great, I buy a different pair of $30 jeans. I don't spend $50 to have them altered, or take it to a laundrette. If it can't be washed in our home washer/dryer, I don't buy it. And these days, when a sock gets a hole? I throw it away.

          • By scoofy 2026-02-1821:441 reply

            This is an effective strategy if you're a fit model, or close to one. If you're within the standard deviation of the sizing chart, you'll probably do fine most of the time.

            I like golf. Most people use a standard shaft. In fact, that shaft length is standard because most people use it. That doesn't mean there isn't an entire industry for "golf fittings" because "most" people isn't even close to everyone.

            • By hn_acc1 2026-02-202:33

              I'm in the "obese" category - 6'1", 230 lbs+. I can still wear more or less off-the-rack jeans. 40x30/38x30 (+ belt) is my size. If anything, I could use help finding the right shoes to fit. But so far, with foam insoles, I've always been able to find some kind of shoe I can wear ok.

              Golf is a luxury. I've played a full course (not driving range) maybe 5 times in my life, all in Canada, because I had a couple of friends, and it was way cheaper there (IMHO). Pretty sure exactly zero people would pay me to help them size their golf club shaft when I probably couldn't break 120 on an easy course. Should I invest 10 years of expensive golfing to get to a point (BIG MAYBE!!!) where I could get close to par, so that someone would pay me? Unless I was already a golf fanatic and doing so on my own, the investment hardly seems worth it.

              Now you'll say it's not golf for me - but that's my point - YES, there ARE boutique industries that don't scale (for now) where you can make some $$. IF you've already invested thousands of hours anyway to be close to an expert, AND are a people person (can sell yourself or you talents), it's possible. And if you think that can't be automated.. Pretty sure someone could tweak a golf simulator to measure shaft length vs. player height, etc and get good enough for 95% of the population. Above that, it's luxury/vanity for rich people to have a "caddy" or whatever - that's really hard to count on, especially if you live in an area where people don't golf much, or there aren't many rich people, or you don't have the connections. No rich person is going to look through the yellow pages (insert search mechanism of your choice) to find a golf pro - they'll talk to their buddies.

              Does the average person have this kind of highly developed, specialized ability in ANY field? Probably not. I've played slowpitch softball for 30+ years for fun. And I'm probably a bit above average for my age in terms of being able to hit the ball due to that - there are still thousands of other players in the area better than I am, and none of them are getting paid to recommend bats.. And if they are, most of them are getting minimum wage at a sporting goods store. Age isn't a factor, so I'm competing against everyone who can swing a bat.

              So sure, there ARE things that may not scale yet (and may never) - but the very thing that makes it hard to scale probably also makes it hard for the average person to become good at, and then offer a service that will actually pay them a living wage.

          • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1821:37

            Well, that's why there are so few people doing this full-time any more.

            But at least they're not going to disappear completely.

            And now there's nowhere to go but up :)

            They have had the internet a while too, keep in mind a select few have gone viral on Etsy while so many SaaS things don't return a fraction of their potential.

        • By tdeck 2026-02-195:391 reply

          How many people visit either kind of business these days? I'm almost 35 and have never once gotten any garment tailored. I think one reason is that clothes are so cheap you can just keep looking and you'll find something that fits, which seems to be what most people do nowadays.

          • By djhn 2026-02-196:00

            Try it. You might be missing out! One of the benefits of getting all your trousers from a tailor made to your size is you never have to waste time trying on trousers, or waste time ordering-returning items.

      • By iamgopal 2026-02-1823:041 reply

        Welding is being heavily targeted for automation, apart from pressure vessels etc, most welding can be automated now a days , very soon ( months? ) every welding can be automated.

        • By throwawaytea 2026-02-1823:392 reply

          You're thinking of factory welding, manufacturing or maybe repetitive pipeline welding and thinks like that.

          It'll be a while until a robot disassembles a trailer enough to remove the bent axle, cleans off all the paint and rust, bends the trailer back into shape where needed, cuts a custom support to makeup for some lost strength, welds it in, primers it, paints it, and assembles the trailer.

          Same for construction too.

          • By iamgopal 2026-02-198:481 reply

            If automation excels sufficiently, robot will replace bent axle with new one automatically, repair cost will be usually higher than replace cost if all things are automated

            • By throwawaytea 2026-02-1923:04

              The axle gets replaced even today. The thing we were welding was the frame.

          • By geoffmanning 2026-02-193:25

            Will it tho? I wonder. We're on the brink of a robotic revolution.

    • By darth_avocado 2026-02-1820:41

      > if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable

      You need to consider both horizontal and vertical scaling. Being a bespoke tailor may not scale vertically, but it can scale horizontally. If you have too many people pick up tailoring, you might run out of neighborhoods without competitors.

    • By pier25 2026-02-1819:203 reply

      > if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable

      I guess it also means that if you build something for a niche audience then big companies will never be interested in it.

      • By rwbt 2026-02-1819:271 reply

        That's not really a bad thing, IMHO. Many people successfully make a living creating niche products.

        • By InexSquirrel 2026-02-1820:50

          I wouldn't say it's not really a bad thing, I think it's a very good thing. There are many people now making incredibly niche products that have very good lives - making more than enough money for themselves doing interesting work engaging with customers that are passionate about their field.

          Sounds like a great life to me.

      • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1821:082 reply

        I like doing things for big companies that they actually could afford easily, but their costs are so high it's a better deal to have me do it.

        One of my favorite niches :)

        Some clients are good enough at math to figure it out, and you don't actually need that many of them if they are big enough.

        • By pier25 2026-02-1821:391 reply

          how do you approach big companies to offer them these custom niche services?

          • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1822:17

            Good question.

            One early approach when starting to build a reputation is to work as a subcontractor to a less-big company who has already gone through everything to be on the approved-vendor list of the massive corporation.

            Even better if the less-big company is a private company and the biggie is public.

            A private company will be able to figure out the benefit from your work better than most, and hopefully profit from it.

            I like it when every time I invoice a client, they are making money at the same time, whether they are making it from me is not always necessary if I am participating in an overall money-making process they are going through. Especially routinely. It's just fine to be a very small participant in lots of activity going on between the big-shots.

            Big companies can have so much work and be able to pay so well that your position can be to merely absorb the overflow from the primary contractor, even if you do not yet have a unique offering.

            Then it's good to build into your exclusive-but-related niche, which would be intended for a different division of the biggie and expect it to languish unless your already-established client can use that too.

            Eventually after you finally get to meet the right person in the target corporate division, it will be after you have already been doing work for that same corporation through the approved primary contractor.

            By this point you've already been doing critical work for that corporation exactly like they need, that you can be proud of and point to, and it can be a whole lot more likely to become an approved vendor yourself. From which position you can finally negotiate fees directly with the most well-heeled corporate source, this would be the first time if you were only working for other primary contractors until then.

            Ideally you will then be invoicing a different office of the same corporation that you were subcontracting under, there will be no conflict of interest, and you can continue working for the original primary contractor too.

            And your most promising niche finally gets to launch with about as much upside as it can get.

        • By gzread 2026-02-1823:421 reply

          What are the things you do?

          • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-190:33

            One thing: Refresh the page to see the rest of the story ;)

      • By hn_acc1 2026-02-1821:221 reply

        I'm sure someone else on Etsy will undercut your price if you sell more than a few.

        • By ddtaylor 2026-02-1822:051 reply

          Probably until a copyright vulture comes along and nukes it.

          • By salawat 2026-02-1822:28

            Given the success of copyright cultures in fending off the most blatant, unambiguous case of copyright violation in human history, (AI), I would not put your money there.

    • By webel0 2026-02-1822:47

      Welding is coming along. Ever heard of Path Robotics? That's high-mix, high-complexity welds. (There are a lot of other, less-sophisticated welding robots out there.) The biggest moat for a welder right now is special certifications to be able to do welds on submarines, etc.

    • By amelius 2026-02-1820:392 reply

      > He gives one the best pieces of advice I've ever heard: if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable.

      You mean like opening a restaurant?

      Too bad delivery services like Uber Eats totally own the market now.

      Starting a hotel? Booking.com and Airbnb are there to take your profit margins away!

      • By InexSquirrel 2026-02-1820:491 reply

        I think that delivery services give you bigger market, but not intrinsic scale. You're still limited by kitchen size, staff numbers, and raw hours you can put into the food.

        You can scale the system (say Subway, or even smaller chains like Burger Fuel), but also reasonably choose _not_ to scale and still do incredibly well (like Michelin star restaurants, or the myriad of hyper-famous-locally Japanese eateries, or Fergburger in Queenstown).

        Someone scaling their own restaurant on the other side of the world won't necessarily out compete out (and in the overwhelming majority of cases with have no impact at all). Despite fast food joints all over the place, I still see small cafes, individual eateries, etc performing well (I mean, as well as hospitality can be).

        Maybe it's worth expanding the definition of > make sure it is NOT scalable < to include 'make sure it's not automatable'?

        • By amelius 2026-02-1820:55

          The problem is that any market can be taken over by someone with deep pockets (or investors making a pile of money). They just make sure they are the "go-to place" for consumers to access the market. By marketing the hell out of it, by making apps, abusing power in other markets (see platforms), etc.

      • By nicbou 2026-02-1910:22

        Yes and any other business has to play the Google Maps and SEO game.

    • By gzread 2026-02-1819:33

      That's also the advice of the founder of this website, but not his investment firm since it's looking for moonshots. https://paulgraham.com/ds.html

    • By laurex 2026-02-1820:05

      I'm excited for a future where the technologist is like the tailor in their community. Scaling software has created a host of 'product traps' and there is no need for that for the vast number of activities people do aided by technology.

    • By nerdsniper 2026-02-200:32

      New laser welders from xTool lower the barrier to entry for welding to nearly the floor. They basically automatically push the welder tip along at the perfect rate for excellent welds, and get super deep penetration / full fusion welds every time with very little skill.

      It will be difficult to know what career is ‘safe’…especially if everyone floods into it because it’s one of the last decent-paying jobs left (it wont pay well for long if everyone else loses their jobs).

    • By thegrim33 2026-02-1922:01

      It's so interesting the amount of people with these big AI fears who think that AI is going to replace most knowledge work within a short period of time, singularity, etc., but that same AI that takes over everything .. isn't going to be smart enough to operate robotics to do plumbing or welding? Those things will be outside the limits of its intelligence?

    • By a_better_world 2026-02-1820:011 reply

      how good was Taleb at following his own advice? Had he tested it? As I recall he is pretty big on "skin in the game' as his differentiator.

      • By fraaancis 2026-02-1913:45

        He kind of did. He used leverage to place bets on the market.

        Leverage scales in a way, because larger pools of money (corporations, groups of investors) mean larger bets.

        But leverage also doesn't scale, because larger pools of money tend to make smaller bets over a larger surface of the market, since being wrong in a big way with leverage can wipe you out.

    • By gverrilla 2026-02-1913:55

      stupid advice. only way to solve the problem is collective. even if you become a tailor or a welder, what about other people? it's not a singleplayer game at all.

    • By HoldOnAMinute 2026-02-1820:252 reply

      >> you'll always be competing against the best, most well funded, smartest people in the room

      What if your goal is for them to buy you out?

      • By scoofy 2026-02-1820:27

        There are much less expensive ways of playing the lottery than investing a year of you life into an unprofitable product that must be scaled to be successful, and only then hoping gets bought by a direct competitor.

      • By fuzzfactor 2026-02-1820:31

        Don't compete, complement and start building the relationship from the beginning.

        Plus, who wants to spend any time competing with the stongest contender anyway, especially to get started :)

    • By Buttons840 2026-02-1820:091 reply

      Is providing scalable products at a cheaper price scalable? If so, can it hurry up and scale? This is a bit of a paradox.

      • By TacticalCoder 2026-02-1820:14

        Who cares? He's arguing about providing something that is not scalable: so whatever happens to things that are scalable ain't the topic.

    • By femiagbabiaka 2026-02-1819:096 reply

      automation makes every job scalable, no?

      • By pphysch 2026-02-1819:31

        Even if it does, there will probably be a prolonged economic period where robots are doing dangerous/messy stuff like welding, plumbing but there is a human master guiding them from a few yards away, via prompts, controllers, etc. More of a semi-autonomous power tool than an fully autonomous master that is delivered by drone on-demand. Scalability is still a ways off.

      • By scoofy 2026-02-1820:571 reply

        If we get AGI and fully autonomous robot assistants, we'll live in a post scarcity world like Star Trek, or somebody in control the robots will use them to enslave all of humanity... so... high variance outcome could go either way.

        • By insane_dreamer 2026-02-1914:55

          given the history of humanity, the post-scarcity world of Star Trek seems highly unlikely

      • By UltraSane 2026-02-1819:41

        That is the ultimate goal. We are very far from it for many jobs.

      • By layer8 2026-02-1819:323 reply

        Do you expect we’ll have AGA, artificial general automation?

        • By femiagbabiaka 2026-02-190:29

          I don't think it needs to be general to be scalable to the point that it causes previously safe industries to "race to the bottom"

          Uber didn't need to launch in every neighborhood to start destroying the taxi business

          Facebook didn't need to have every eyeball on the internet in order to massively disrupt trad advertising

          At some point there's just a tipping point

        • By lukan 2026-02-1819:35

          I do. But it will take some time to get there.

        • By jimbokun 2026-02-1820:461 reply

          I don’t see anything stopping that from happening in the very near future.

      • By kardashev8 2026-02-1819:263 reply

        could you automate a BJJ coach?

        • By handzhiev 2026-02-1820:041 reply

          Who's going to pay for a BJJ coach when nearly everyone is out of job?

          • By aatd86 2026-02-1919:23

            You will probably have time related free credits for AI usage. The more you sell stuff that are in demand and ship fast, the higher price you can command. Otherwise you just get basic income. People will have to be creative. Creativity doesn't scale to machines. Creative decision making has too many branches.

            So time based costs for product manufacturing and procurement.

            Everyone will barter again in a sense.

            Better money circulation. Those who just want entertainment can also do nothing. But entertainment will be a more important field. Already the case with tiktok, everyone is becoming an interntainer(sic) these days.

            You have things such as the police olympics so to speak in the UAE... :)

            So coaching people, personal improvement, wellness, will be good fields to be in.

        • By femiagbabiaka 2026-02-190:19

          IMO literally automating the job isn't the only possible scenario -- already in the weightlifting space coaches are supplying skills and system prompts to llms that do their training for them, massively raising the number of students they can train at at time -- at some point that turns training into a zero sum game

        • By AntiDyatlov 2026-02-1819:31

          I mean, if AI doesn't stall out, maybe there will be BJJ bots in 10 years.

      • By pier25 2026-02-1819:153 reply

        can you automate a tailor?

        • By Epa095 2026-02-1819:225 reply

          Isn't tailors by and large already outcompeted by cheap new clothes?

          • By dolebirchwood 2026-02-1819:291 reply

            A big point of seeing a tailor is getting yourself fitted for custom clothing that is specifically made just for you. As someone who's bought $200 off-the-rack suits and $2,000 tailor-made suits, there's a world of difference between the two, especially when you have an atypical body type.

            (Granted, to the main point, I still think a tailor could be automated in some distant future, but we'll need robots to perform physical interactions, not just software.)

            • By bubblewand 2026-02-1819:451 reply

              Tailors are a niche thing for weirdos, now. It's not exactly a growth market. Most folks only wear a suit to weddings and funerals, and maybe job interviews. They have basically no need for more than two suits, and many try to get by with just one (in black, probably). Lots don't own one at all, maybe just a cheap fused-construction blazer or two, if even that. Outright bespoke clothes are a niche of a niche.

              Normal people wear clothes containing minimum 2% elastic and perhaps never, ever visit a tailor in their whole lives, except maybe one at a tux rental place or a wedding dress store, for their own wedding. If they repair clothes, it's sewing on the odd button at home or using iron-on denim patches. Past that, it's just not worth fixing, normal folks' clothes are so cheap.

              The whole market for tailors is practically an affectation. It's not serving much actual need any more, not from the perspective of the overwhelming majority of people who are happy with stretch-denim jeans and polyester sportswear jackets and such. It's basically 99% of the way to being an obsolete job, kept from total death by a few enthusiasts. Only a bit more lively than the market for, say, authentic regency-era footwear or something like that.

              (I am a fellow weirdo, for the record)

              • By apsurd 2026-02-1819:502 reply

                I mean, you do you.

                Clothing is really _fashion_ for tons of people. Fashion is art. People like art.

                • By debatem1 2026-02-1820:07

                  As someone who has tried to make several businesses around art, people generally like art but not enough to pay "at scale" money for it.

                • By bubblewand 2026-02-1820:301 reply

                  Yes, I am one of the people who has a preferred tailor who can do more than just let trousers waists out. I also know where the nearest cobbler is. That’s not normal, though.

                  A dead industry often doesn’t entirely disappear, it just shrinks a bunch and comes to rely entirely on enthusiasts or very rare actual need, rather than broad need or appeal. Consider the draft horse breeder, or the carriage driver. There’s a market for both professions! But they’re itty-bitty. The day-to-day need for both is gone.

                  Tailoring is hovering right in the edge of that kind of status, today. It’s dying, killed by $10-30 shirts and $20-50 trousers and $50-100 jackets all from largely synthetic materials, and a society that no longer expects anyone to wear anything “fancier” outside certain events.

                  I mean, outside very unusual circles, dinner jackets are essentially ceremonial costume-wear, and business suits aren’t far behind on that track. You gonna wear a tailored wool hacking jacket or breathable linen Norfolk suit on your camping trip, or a bunch of polyester and nylon stuff from REI? LOL. All the situational tailored clothing but the business suit and blazer are near-extinct unless you want to look like a cosplayer, and those are on borrowed time.

                  • By apsurd 2026-02-1820:471 reply

                    Yes, your message is coming from the pov of economics and business, as makes sense in this thread! That's my mistake, I took your message more sentimentally. I've used tailoring probably 5 times in my life, with the only recurring need being to hem pants.

                    "There is no money in tailoring" seems right. It's the "not all things need to make maximum $$$" that I speak to. You didn't pick this fight though, I did heh.

                    My (successful) friend tells me all about how amazing it is to collect very expensive watches. I just need to be a "watch guy" and I'll come to understand. Once my eyes returned from rolling out of my head, I did concede a great point he made: there is no reason for watch makers to exist anymore. The fantastically amazing history and evolution of time-keeping and personal time-pieces is now purely supported by rich people that care to subsidize the art form. And so, maybe I really do aspire to be a watch guy after all... hmm.

                    • By dugidugout 2026-02-190:25

                      A romantic perspective I still try and hold myself, however the point about the watch and the cloth and the dwindling appreciation for such is presently experienced in reference to decades or centuries of disruption and are intrinsically tied to the demand of attention. I don't trust the acceleration will leave much, but I am continuing to paint and taking writing more seriously in great fear of the time scales we are navigating today. I find myself confronted with nihilism in so many facets of my life but perhaps this is simply the smell of the air in my particular milieu.

          • By scoofy 2026-02-1820:21

            A huge part of the tailoring business are making small adjustments to cheap clothing to get them 90% of the way to bespoke.

            If you’ve never done it, I strongly recommend getting your jackets tailored. Even a casual jacket will fit and look non-trivially better for $50-$100 and an afternoon at your local tailor. You can even get things like cycling gear tailored.

          • By UltraSane 2026-02-1819:43

            Rich people still get suits custom made specifically to their measurements and preferences. They cost about $20,000 USD. It would be cool to have this process automated and affordable to the masses.

          • By layer8 2026-02-1819:33

            Not if you want any tailoring to be done.

          • By bilbo0s 2026-02-1819:421 reply

            cheap new clothes

            Uh.. I don't mean to be that guy, but tailors aren't even operating in that market.

            People who use tailors aren't interested in off the rack items.

            Even when they do purchase off the rack or even secondhand items..

            they'll go have some of those items tailored.

            • By Epa095 2026-02-1819:571 reply

              > but tailors aren't even operating in that market.

              Not anymore.

              • By bilbo0s 2026-02-1820:57

                Not any time that most of us have even been alive.

                It's been well over half a century since tailors operated in the "cheap clothing" market.

                The clothes tailors make have, pretty much, always been expensive relative off the rack department store options.

                Probably because tailor made clothing doesn't "scale".

        • By ansgri 2026-02-1821:16

          Absolutely. Design parametric families of patterns, 3d-scan the person, let customer adjust with live preview, laser cut, then fully automated or low-skill assembly. Probably not currently economical like many things involving physical world manipulation, but without obvious roadblocks.

        • By insane_dreamer 2026-02-1914:57

          yes but is there enough demand for tailoring that it would make it economically feasibly to create the investment to automate it? probably not.

          and in a world where many/most(?) people have lost their jobs to AI, only the wealthy few will be able to afford tailoring anyway

    • By agentifysh 2026-02-1819:18

      This seems overly pessimistic

      As scalability becomes more accessible like with coding agents

      The less it becomes about money but distribution

      While money can buy you the latter it may not compound to something that is sustainable

    • By throwaway150 2026-02-1820:161 reply

      > if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable.

      Great advice but difficult to action though.

      I mean 10 years back I'd have thought programming is that thing which is not scalable. I had every reason to believe that. It required skill, experience, ability to stay current, grit for debugging hard stuff. Much of it can be automated now.

      What can I pick now for a living that is not scalable today that some future technology would automate it just as easily.

      • By tuatoru 2026-02-1823:16

        You never wrote any scripts to write code?

  • By autoconfig 2026-02-1816:518 reply

    > When creation was hard, skill was the differentiator: you had to actually be good to make something worth showing. Now the barrier is near zero, so you need reach. Reach costs money or it costs years. Probably both.

    Creation has progressively been getting easier since the invention of the computer, it is not a new phenomena. This naturally pushes the boundary on what needs to be delivered in order to find paying customers. In other words, creation still is "hard" if you want to succeed.

    > I launched something last week. 14 people signed up — no ads, just a couple of posts. 14 real people who didn't have to. That number is tiny and it felt like something. Then I sat down to think about what it would take to grow it and I couldn't look at that math for very long.

    This applies to 90+% of founders that have ever launched something. The hard part comes from continuing to push forward when you experience this (which you will over and over). It sounds like the author expects that what was hard suddenly should be easy.

    • By apsurd 2026-02-1817:482 reply

      sounds like the author is discovering business.

      I didn't read the article, but yes, going from 0-1,1-10 is really hard and really rewarding. And it got easier with the Internet. Going from 10-1k and 1k-1M is a different ball-game. Always was.

      The dream of running my own company got me to learn programming. 20 years later I'm an employee at a company still dreaming of running my own company. But now I can realize that reality and dreams are not the same and that's ok. As in, I probably really don't want to run my own company. We'll see =P

      • By MichaelRo 2026-02-1819:101 reply

        >> The dream of running my own company got me to learn programming. 20 years later I'm an employee at a company still dreaming of running my own company. But now I can realize that reality and dreams are not the same and that's ok. As in, I probably really don't want to run my own company. We'll see =P

        To me having one own's company was just a means to the end: making enough money to live comfortably without the need to get a job ever again for the rest of my life. I too learned programming as a means to achieve that end but eventually realized that I don't need a company if I can short-circuit the path to money. By switching to the right domain - finance, where what I learn might be eventually put to use directly by investing capital into profitable trading strategies.

        Back to OP's article, if there's a domain where money as a moat is not a problem, that's definitely finance: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and...

        I work in this domain since almost 20 years and can tell you, noone's gonna risk a billion dollars on crap vibe coded by AI. I wrote before, I don't know what crack these AI people are smoking but when there's real stakes at play, they don't play around with toys. And AI in programming is a toy. The unlikely triumph of "Can I haz teh codez?" CTRL+C / CTRL+V "prompt experts" (mocking it, lol) strategy on Stack Overflow, along with the people who employ it.

        I'm not worried about MY particular future in this industry. I'm not worried that AI is gonna replace me, us, or write anything significant here at all in the foreseeable future until it fucking evolves into AGI which is somewhere 5000 years from now, optimistically.

        The party's gotta come to an end really soon along with the figures on how much money AI makes versus it's real utility - which is, simply stated, "a toy".

        Not necessary but here's my mood while writing this comment: - listening to this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWqTym2cQU&list=RD6EWqTym2c...

        • By wan23 2026-02-1819:532 reply

          It's absolutely wild to see how unevenly distributed the future we're living in is.

          • By rubslopes 2026-02-1823:33

            That's almost that famous quote by William Gibson: "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed."

          • By elektronika 2026-02-1820:35

            Is it any surprise when wealth inequality has been increasing in the USA for the past 50 years? Globally the picture is even more bleak.

      • By canxerian 2026-02-197:30

        In the game of business, quitting = losing.

    • By Waterluvian 2026-02-1818:132 reply

      Something I've noticed a lot with Twitch streamers and YouTubers is that many of them want the outcome and are prepared to do the work, but want some sort of guarantee of success. It's very difficult to really sell to people that you will work very hard for a while and there's absolutely no promise that you'll ever have more than 14 subscribers. That's simply the core risk of entrepreneurship.

      • By djaro 2026-02-1818:45

        Also, as someone who's main source of income is a YouTube channel: there is a type of threshold effect, where your videos are not good enough to watch until one day they suddenly are.

        This means that until you reach that threshold, it feels like you're not making progress, cause every video just gets the same result (no views). Even if below the surface, you're slowly inching closer to that moment where your videos will actually be watched.

      • By AlienRobot 2026-02-1821:15

        I have the impression it's more of a "bait and switch" thing. People get into streaming thinking they can just play games and make money, but then they realize nobody is going to watch someone play game X, they all want to watch game Y, because game Y is popular right now among the people who have the most time to play games and watch streams (kids). So they enter the industry thinking they can just do whatever they want, and quickly realize they have to do infinite things they don't want to actually reach the level of popularity they need.

    • By alfalfasprout 2026-02-1818:52

      The thing is, the barrier isn't near zero. The time to reach an MVP has just decreased. But you still very much need expertise, strategy, etc. to deliver something worthwhile. The bar has just increased.

    • By jonathanstrange 2026-02-1818:21

      You've basically chosen to ignore the whole AI argument as if it was just another tool and we had business as usual. Given how pervasive and fast developing it is, there should be an argument why it can be dismissed so easily.

    • By tensor 2026-02-1818:031 reply

      > Creation has progressively been getting easier since the invention of the computer, it is not a new phenomena. This naturally pushes the boundary on what needs to be delivered in order to find paying customers. In other words, creation still is "hard" if you want to succeed.

      Only for developers. Outside of software creation is still hard. Global markets giving access to excellent manufacturing sure does help, but software is a bubble.

      • By Jensson 2026-02-1818:33

        Creating marketing material has certainly gotten easier as well, it used to require a lot of work to create these spam pamphlets and company documents but today its trivial. Of course those are worthless to society so didn't help GDP but it filled our society with advertisements and spam and filled companies with worthless documents since now nobody thinks before making one.

    • By ericmcer 2026-02-1818:574 reply

      Seriously you can ship in a week things that FAANGs would have paid billions for 10 years ago.

      LLMs are just glue between pieces of your code you still need to be able to plug them into a coherent architecture to do something impressive.

      • By altmanaltman 2026-02-1820:12

        Apple Pay (launched around 12 years ago, and likely costing billions) is exactly the counter-example here. The 'code' was the easy part. The moat was the decade of hardware R&D and the leverage to force banks to adopt a new standard. An LLM might write the API wrapper in seconds, but it can't hallucinate a relationship with Visa and Mastercard. You literally cannot create a new Apple Pay in a week or even years, no matter how much you vibe code.

        I'm sometimes baffled by what people think can pass as a product in a real sense.

      • By sarchertech 2026-02-1819:15

        To the extent that’s true it has much, much more to do with AWS, open source libraries, and collective knowledge, than it does LLMs.

        But I honestly can’t think of anything you could do in a week that a company in 2015 would have paid billions for unless it’s something like tweaking an LLM. But in that case it’s the original model, not the 1 week or work you put in.

      • By tdrz 2026-02-1819:26

        OK, say you build a Whatsapp clone in a week. How many Whatsapp users will switch to your app?

      • By zabzonk 2026-02-1819:202 reply

        > things that FAANGs would have paid billions for 10 years ago

        such as?

        • By lich_king 2026-02-1820:31

          I can only assume the grandparent means Google+

        • By ericmcer 2026-02-1822:142 reply

          I mean literally anything that leverages modern APIs.

          WYSIWG Site Builders, text Chat bots, audio Transcription, voice synthesis.

          Yeah building from scratch would take longer, but you can slap a UI, a DB/schema around modern APIs and output something that would be science fiction 10 years ago.

          • By gzread 2026-02-1823:44

            WYSIWYG sure builders existed 10 years ago and did not cost billions. Chat bots were a novelty since the NFT bubble hadn't popped yet, and they would invent NFTs to stake the economy on instead. Audio transcription and synthesis existed and did not cost billions.

          • By zabzonk 2026-02-1822:51

            You think people would pay billions for a site builder??? Or that it would have been SF 10 years ago? I take it you were not around much 10 years ago.

    • By heathrow83829 2026-02-1818:52

      i would argue that reach has already been the biggest limiting factor for the last 10 even 20 years.

    • By phil21 2026-02-1818:411 reply

      It's just another way of saying "Ideas are worthless, execution is what matters" which has always been largely true.

      Yes, you need the idea first of course. But that's truly the easy part. 99% of "ideas" rely on great execution to be worth even looking at - much less paying for - for anyone else.

      • By miyoji 2026-02-1819:041 reply

        That isn't what it's saying and I don't think the idea that "execution is what matters" is even true, other than to point out that ideas aren't valuable by themselves.

        This is about marketing, about getting people to know and care that the thing you built exists. You can execute perfectly (in terms of making a great product) and not get a single eyeball.

        • By chii 2026-02-195:26

          > You can execute perfectly (in terms of making a great product) and not get a single eyeball.

          that's a tautological statement - if not a single eyeball is on the product, then you obviously didnt make a great product. after all, who determines a product is great? It's those eyeballs, not the creator.

  • By showerst 2026-02-1816:3214 reply

    This AI boom is just a hyper-version of previous tech booms (web 1.0, VC, crypto, etc). You have an enormous number of people who just want to get in and build something, but the products they are pumping out don't serve anyone's need or solve anyone's problem.

    The moat isn't money for out-marketing your idea that 750 other people are building, it's having a good idea that solves a problem that nobody else is solving well.

    • By neom 2026-02-1817:012 reply

      I worked during the digital revolution in film, I've told the story a zillion times on HN but basically, I went through the first pure digital film program in Canada, by the time I graduated 70% had dropped out, as far as I know I'm the only one who made a proper go at it, and even then when my startup was taking off, a new hot shot would show up every month and be gone the next when they got bored or frustrated when nobody thought they were special. Tools are tools.

      • By ncphillips 2026-02-1818:541 reply

        > a new hot shot would show up every month and be gone the next when they got bored or frustrated when nobody thought they were special

        I don't know much about film industry, and I have a ton of brainfog from being sick today.

        Could you say more? What made them a hotshot? They thought they were like, creative geniuses with digital film or something?

        • By neom 2026-02-1819:04

          They often WERE creative geniuses with a digital camera! Brilliant people! In fact they were the ones who came and went the fastest, what makes you useful in industry is very frequently nothing to do with genius or creativity or mastery of the tools. It's things like reliability, stability, team spirit, open mindedness etc.

          Creative genius is one game, but it's far from the only, or even, main one.

          Hope you feel better. <3

      • By curiouscavalier 2026-02-1818:40

        yeah this is really a part of it. Both founders and investors get spooked by the rapid entries into a market but persistent not just when it’s hard but when it’s boring goes so much farther.

    • By boplicity 2026-02-1816:462 reply

      > the products they are pumping out don't serve anyone's need or solve anyone's problem.

      This isn't true though.

      Yes, there are too many products being build that don't serve anyone's needs or solve anyone's problems.

      However, many of the AI products do solve problems and serve needs.

      You're right though, to compare this to other booms, which also had the same problem. This is very much a "hyper" version, which is pretty incredible to be in the middle of.

      • By showerst 2026-02-1817:092 reply

        I don't mean that _all_ AI built stuff is useless, just that the number of products where 'marketing budget' is the bottleneck is dwarfed by the number of tools that aren't that special in the first place.

        If you have a product that:

        1. Solves a real problem people would pay for

        2. Is not trivially replicable by your potential customers or competitors

        3. Does not have a natural discovery mechanism by potential customers

        Then you need the marketing budget.

        That is not most people's problem.

        • By arrsingh 2026-02-1818:541 reply

          I think item #2 in your list is the real kicker here. Given that AI can write code the threshold for "trivially replicable" is going down.

          Unless your thing has strong network effects or a large capex requirement (ex: GPU infra) its easily replicated and I think that's really what makes things hard.

          • By sarchertech 2026-02-1819:23

            Most business software that was truly trivially replicable with AI, was already trivially replicable with the prototyping tools we had available.

        • By tjwebbnorfolk 2026-02-1818:27

          Ok but pick any category of human endeavor and 80% of it is garbage in the beginning. There were 3000 car companies in the 1920s, and most of them sucked, and so they died. The market over time will sort out who survives and who does not.

          It will take a few years for investors to figure this out, but in the meantime, everyone is spreading their bets around like peanut butter in order to be in the game.

      • By PaulDavisThe1st 2026-02-1817:00

        > However, many of the AI products do solve problems and serve needs.

        Every solution to a problem comes with its own costs. It is entirely possible that most solutions that are rooted in modern computing technology have actual or perceived costs that exceed the value of "solving the problem".

        The problems that most people have that they really want to solve are not addressable by AI, or computers, or software.

    • By clickety_clack 2026-02-1817:151 reply

      This seems to me like the few booms I’ve seen before. Absolutely crazy valuations with very little behind them, massive hype, everyone’s unemployed uncle suddenly becoming a shallow expert. It’s probably going to end the same way too, once the upward momentum dissipates and things start to retreat to “fundamentals”, we’ll find out that there were a lot fewer solid points in the market than we were all told to expect, so the fundamentals are actually pretty far down. After 5 to 10 years of regrouping, a more mature and solid version will come about and become such a normal part of life we barely even remember what it was like without it.

      • By steveBK123 2026-02-1818:02

        We are well on our way to the popping of inflated expectations.

        Currently people are taking AI hype too seriously and extrapolating its success out in such a way as to discount the value of other businesses.

        Example - last week a bunch of trucking stocks crashed 10-20% because a $6M company that pivoted from Karaoke to AI demoed something.

        This is just insane. Sure, if say Waymo is pivoting into commercial trucking.. maybe. But people are basically shorting minutemaid lemonade because their neighbors kids opened up a lemonade stand. Demos are easy, products are hard.

    • By RC_ITR 2026-02-1816:434 reply

      It's like that FT chart claiming that the rapid rise in iOS apps is evidence of an AI-fueled productivity boom.

      I always ask people, in the past year, how many AI-coded apps have you 1) downloaded 2) paid for?

      • By sarchertech 2026-02-1816:561 reply

        In addition to that, what they don’t mention is that:

        1. Other app stores like Google Play and Steam haven’t seen this rapid rise.

        2. There are thousands maybe tens of thousands of apps that are just wrappers calling OpenAI APIs or similar low effort AI apps making up a large percentage of this increase.

        3. There are billions of dollars pouring into AI startups and many of them launch an iOS app.

        • By vkou 2026-02-1818:382 reply

          Has steam not seen a rapid rise in AI-asset shovelware?

          I'm not talking about the AAA or the AA or even the A space (where AI is being incorporated into dev processes with various degrees of both success and low effort slop), I'm talking about the actual bottom of the barrel.

          • By Jensson 2026-02-1821:18

            You never needed AI to make shovelware, you have been able to make a shitty game over a weekend ever since RPG maker was made and there are still games made using that.

            AI just helps create some assets for games, it doesn't really make it easier or faster to make games but they might look a bit better.

          • By sarchertech 2026-02-1818:48

            I can’t speak to the quality of all the games released, but in January 2025 there were 1,413 games released on Steam and in January of this year there were 1,448.

      • By esseph 2026-02-1818:39

        > I always ask people, in the past year, how many AI-coded apps have you 1) downloaded 2) paid for?

        In the past 5 years, the only "new" app I've added to my phone has been Claude.ai.

        Before that I guess DoorDash. And that probably covers the past 7ish years of phone use.

        There's just too much shit in the store, a lot of it is scammy or has dark patterns.

        For me, "app stores" are largely dead.

      • By disgruntledphd2 2026-02-1816:52

        > It's like that FT chart claiming that the rapid rise in iOS apps is evidence of an AI-fueled productivity boom.

        I mean, there is evidence for some change. Personally, I'm sceptical of what this will amount to, but prior to EOY 2025, there really wasn't any evidence for an app/service boom, and now there's weak evidence, which is better than none.

      • By _DeadFred_ 2026-02-1818:32

        Because so much technical functionality has been lost/paywalled/dark patterned/enshitified, I've cut the number of apps I use. I've realized building core personal functionality around the whims of corporations eventually just gets weaponized against me, so I might as well start undoing that on my own terms. Who in 2026 is really bringing in a new app/Saas to do much of anything like we naively did a decade ago? No one I know, we've been shown we will be treated as suckers for doing that.

    • By cosmic_cheese 2026-02-1821:05

      > …it's having a good idea that solves a problem that nobody else is solving well.

      Added emphasis to the most crucial part, in my opinion.

      If you can manage to deliver a product that's meaningfully better than the competition, you still have an edge, so long as you're competent at marketing.

      Nothing gets people searching for alternatives as consistently as frustration, and a product that was lazily built with AI (vibe coded or otherwise) is going to be full of bugs and papercuts that make using it a poor experience.

      This is particularly true for software that sits in the hot path of peoples' workflows, where thoughtless design, misbehavior, and poor optimization chip away at time the user can't afford to spare.

      In short: yes, competition will be plentiful but it will also be almost entirely awful, and capable SWEs can capitalize on that. It won't take much to stand out amongst the mountains of garbage that will be generated in the coming years.

    • By lelanthran 2026-02-1819:221 reply

      > The moat isn't money for out-marketing your idea that 750 other people are building, it's having a good idea that solves a problem that nobody else is solving well.

      This is a very naive take. Any good idea you have can now be cloned trivial in no time at all.

      The clones just need to out spend you on marketing even though it is your idea that the LLM cloned.

      • By prmph 2026-02-1819:411 reply

        So where are the AI clones of MS Office, JetBrains IDEs, Whatsapp, Obsidian, etc. so far?

        • By lelanthran 2026-02-1819:541 reply

          Obsidian has plenty of clones. The others have money as a moat, which is exactly my point.

          • By prmph 2026-02-1820:031 reply

            Which clones? And why not the others?

            Which is my point: it seems easy to clone something that seems conceptually simple, but is the result of all kinds of UI, UX, performance, etc optimizations. The reason someone might choose Obsidian over these so called clones is not just marketing, I assure you. The reason people attempt Obsidian clones is that they think creating todo-list management tools, etc is all it takes to implement a PKM, and that that is easy. It is not.

            Right now there are kinds of tools I wished existed, that I would pay for, but AI does not automatically provide the insight, good taste, technical excellence, and grit needed to create these products. I could do them, with AI assisting, but do not have the time. It is not a simple matter of saying: Claude, create or clone X, Y, Z.

            • By lelanthran 2026-02-1820:212 reply

              > Which clones?

              Are you seriously contending that apps that have Obsidians functionality don't exist?

              Just on HN alone, throughout 2023 - 2025 we were seing like one new TODO app show up on HN weekly!

              > And why not the others?

              Because money is the moat, and they have it!

              That was my entire point - money is the moat.

              • By gzread 2026-02-1823:481 reply

                You have failed to provide a single example of an Obsidian clone.

                • By literallywho 2026-02-195:26

                  There are so many of them, aren't there? There's Roam Research (might be the OG one), Logseq (FOSS Obsidian basically), Notion, Emacs' Org-Roam, Anytype, etc. Neovim has like 5 extensions implementing the same idea (such as Neorg), Bram's Vim probably has its own plugins in Vim9script.

              • By prmph 2026-02-1820:461 reply

                You are not making sense.

                > Just on HN alone, throughout 2023 - 2025 we were seing like one new TODO app show up on HN weekly!

                This response shows you missed my point entirely. I am saying a todo app does not a PKM make! I'm not interested in a vibe-coded todo app, it is useless to me.

                > Because money is the moat, and they have it!

                You're sidestepping issue and contradicting yourself. I asked: if cloning is so easy, why has no one cloned the JetBrains IDEs, for example?

                Remember, I'm not talking about what happens after the cloning. Are you saying no one has cloned Jetbrains because it takes a lot of money to do so? That would contradict your claim that AI makes it easy.

                • By lelanthran 2026-02-1910:051 reply

                  What's the point you are trying to make here? That it is not possible to trivially clone good ideas?

                  Let's start with my actual claim - "It is now trivially possible for someone to clone your good idea".

                  I want to clarify your position: Do you think that the bar for cloning someone else's good idea is now:

                  1. Harder to do with AI,

                  2. Easier to do with AI,

                  3. Exactly the same level of difficulty it always was.

                  Because if you are arguing that #2 is an incorrect answer, there's no real point in continuing the argument, is there? I'm taking #2 as a given, and you appear to be arguing that it is a baseless assumption.

                  • By prmph 2026-02-1910:581 reply

                    My point is that "easier" is not the same as "trivial".

                    Yes, for a skilled and determined hacker, judicious use of AI can enable them do more. That is a far cry from "AI makes cloning complex flagship apps trivial".

                    Furthermore, the value of software is not primarily in the arrangement of bits. It is about the technical, domain, and contextual knowledge you gain as you develop the software, the understanding you gain about your customers, etc. AI cannot give you that on a whim.

                    • By lelanthran 2026-02-1912:49

                      > That is a far cry from "AI makes cloning complex flagship apps trivial".

                      That is not what I claimed, though.

                      I said "Cloning your good idea", and context in this thread and this story is not, nor was it ever, about producing Windows 11 or a similarly large and non-trivial product.

                      It was, IIRC, about small teams (the actual story is about a solo founder) executing a good idea, and then seeing someone with a $20 CC account cloning that product in a week.

                      That's what I responded to.

    • By billconan 2026-02-1816:389 reply

      how to prevent others from building a copycat using ai?

      • By caminante 2026-02-1817:281 reply

        The discussion here is going sideways, and I blame the underwhelming blog post.

        Having money is NOT an economic moat-- i.e., a durable, structural competitive advantage.

        He overlooks broader, true definition of moat attributes like labor supply, infrastructure, PP&E, brand, network, natural monopolies, switching costs, regulation. These don't go away with commoditized CRUD apps.

        And quoting someone with decades of experience implying that things are hard now and innovation didn't turn over industries in the last 25+ years is a joke.

        • By RGamma 2026-02-1817:53

          The more I think about it the more brainrot the article really is. As if all problems are solved and pumping out soulless shovelware companies is worth anything. It really is "just one more app" all over again.

      • By maeln 2026-02-1816:48

        Knowledge ? For b2c it might be more difficult, but in b2b, understanding your customer and their specifics issue and developing something made for them is one of the big challenge. Being able to spit out code for free is useless if you don't know what and who you are making the code for.

      • By ativzzz 2026-02-1816:48

        The same way you prevented this previously. Copying successful products is nothing new, AI just makes it easier.

        Marketing, lawyers, good customer support, creating relationships with customers.

      • By Daishiman 2026-02-1816:471 reply

        You work on niches that have very specific requirements that you can only derive from having a good relationship with customers and so you attend to those needs faster than competitors who are out of the loop.

        • By billconan 2026-02-1816:50

          > you attend to those needs faster than competitors

          I wonder if this type of hustling can be called moat building?

      • By rvz 2026-02-1816:48

        Let's just say, building software alone is not enough.

      • By Bnjoroge 2026-02-1817:09

        You cant. You can only focus on building your own product and making it durable and just much better

      • By elbear 2026-02-1818:22

        by keeping the how part a secret

      • By g947o 2026-02-1816:43

        You don't.

    • By koolba 2026-02-1817:251 reply

      > The moat isn't money for out-marketing your idea that 750 other people are building, it's having a good idea that solves a problem that nobody else is solving well.

      An idea is not a moat. Execution is only a moat if being nimble is part of the ongoing offering.

      • By _DeadFred_ 2026-02-1818:23

        Historically, during booms like this (for example the industrial revolution), it was, because we had patent protections in order to encourage ideas to be brought to market. I don't see how you can have an AI revolution that doesn't just funnel everything to the top without something similar.

        Why invent the cotton gin, find investors, and bring it to market if the steel company with the infinite worker machine can instantly compete with you?

    • By joe_the_user 2026-02-1820:45

      Well, if someone could create a drop-in replacement for Oracle-DB, Adobe Creative or AutoCad in a month of vibe-coding, I think they could prosper without having their own good idea. I would like to see something like this.

      But if you're just talking the fairly simple apps that a single very talented programmer could pump out before this, sure, yeah.

    • By zahlman 2026-02-1823:50

      20 years ago, people told me ideas were a dime a dozen and implementation was what counted....

    • By _DeadFred_ 2026-02-1818:21

      Not really. It's money/resources. I had some really useful apps I built for myself. I looked at releasing them, but there were companies whose business model was waiting for people like me to release apps that solve a problem, and then just instantly jump on creating a solution and outcompeting the independent app.

      It's trivial for competitors with bigger pockets to outcompete you on your idea, and there are companies whose business model is just that. And with AI customers are trying to do it themselves as well. The only startup I wouldn't be nervous about as a small team without large financial backing would be ones where we start out partnered to multiple companies in the targeted industry so that we can leverage that connection.

      Historically this is why we have copyright/patent laws. To make it make sense for people to try to bring their ideas to the world. But with everything changing we are back to everyone just sitting on their concepts/solutions unless they have big money behind them.

    • By casey2 2026-02-1820:20

      No, the moat is having a seemingly good "scalable" idea that solves a problem a few people have and most people think they have. Then getting bought out.

      The zip2s and OpenClaws of the world

    • By Bnjoroge 2026-02-1817:10

      Eh, there's some truth it both. The truth is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Distribution absolutely matters, often times even more than the product. And vice versa

    • By PlatoIsADisease 2026-02-1819:211 reply

      Buddy, my wife vibe coded an app that solves her PTO tracking problem in 1 shot.

      Her payroll company was going to charge her an extra $200 a month.

HackerNews