Hacker News

I wish i could take back the view i gave to this article, it says nothing. Is there such a thing as an inverse hype machine? Where people take the opposite side of a hyped product and then hype that view just as much but for the same purpose? His footer even admits he's basically just trolling for views so he can reach the status of "thought leader".

btw, someone else having the same idea you have for a saas company has always been the case forever. Individuals taking shortcuts in quality to get to market faster has also been the case forever. There's nothing new about either of those two things.

Side projects don't die from lack of time. They die from success anxiety. Shipping means facing judgment. An eternal WIP stays safe in the "potential" zone where it can't disappoint anyone including yourself

> Quality is not a metric anyone cares about in 2026.

When you write operational critical code, it matters. No one can blame “the AI made me do it” when things go down and hundreds of thousands of people are without service.

When your code can hurt people, it matters. You can’t burn someone’s eye with a laser then point to some AI agent when lawsuits start flying in.

When millions of dollars in production data is lost or corrupted, who is responsible? Not AI. Quality matters.

I keep hearing this one phrase about code quality again and again. Sure, no one cares about the dumb little linter failing your builds, but when code quality comes to responsibility, it goes hand in hand. It’s either that or your all working on hobby projects.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, being one of the SaaS-developing developers he describes. But I think that only the complexity required for a SaaS is increasing. You certainly can't earn millions with the kind of SaaS that used to take a week or two, and can now be done on a weekend. So I am trying the kind of SaaS that I never dared to start, knowing that it would take a year or two of my spare time. And with AI agents, I now hope to complete it in 3 or 4 months, with a lot of extra features I would never have dared to include in an MVP.

I got out of software and into physical products a couple of years ago. I wish I could say I was prescient, but honestly it's just so much easier to sell physical items.

Margins are worse, but selling is easier. If you've got a thing you can be sure that someone somewhere will give you money for it.

I always got the impression that the only way a relatively average software developer could make a “successful” SaaS is if they built something weird and niche that appeals to an audience of <1000 paying customers. In that sense, it doesn’t really matter if your competition is better at SEO since your competition never even thought to build something like this, never cared, and not to mention that the market for this thing is so small that SEO is arguably a wasted skill. You’ll need to acquire these people by finding them directly or through word of mouth.

This blog post seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of solo-developer SaaS, but then again arguably mostly software developers also fundamentally misunderstand it.

This vibes with me, though I think it's overly glum.

You can't hope to succeed by building something cool without distribution already figured out. If you haven't put the work in building a social following, you're pretty much locked into pay to play (which isn't horrible if you target small targeted bloggers/youtubers/etc, but it's not my bag). OpenClaw exploded because Peter has >100k twitter followers and among them are plenty of people who themselves have a ton of followers.

So, if you're building, you also need to focus on building an audience.

The high touch enterprise sales strategy is solid though, and easier to bootstrap. That's why Alex Hormozi and Dan Martell push people getting started that way.

I think what is left is that understanding pain points and knowing what problems needs solved is more important now than ever. If anyone can create a product now then the one who knows what product to actually create is the winner. And who might this be? Well it might just be the people who spent the last 10 years speaking to customers, building a SaaS. They have 10 years of taking to customers finding out what to build. Even if they were to start from scratch today they already have the requirements in their pocket.

The game has change. The ‘how’ we build it is easy. The ‘what’ we build is and always has been the hardest part of any SaaS or business.

Vapid and wrong on every point. Many good ideas come from steeping in a novel soup of ideas for a long time, you don't need that many people to care about quality to make it a lucrative differentiator, and as I've seen many point out on X dot com the everything app: where's all the the shipped results of these slop torrent?

The models are increasingly capable in impressive ways. Maybe the next gen will enable the "sales critter" to slop out commercially viable software with no tech know-how. If not, I'm sure we'll assume the next can, and if not that, the next.

But feigning confidence about the shape and nature of this unfurling sea-change is absurd when the high-profile examples we have are like, what, moltbook? And denigrate _all_ potential ingenuity and insight unilaterally into the bargain? What a careless way of looking at the world

SaaS let's you simply pay to make blockers go away. Now that our time is more high leverage, why wouldn't you continue to do that?

Let's say you could vibe your own replacement to a $20/month app in 16 hours. Congratulations, you did work valued at an $15/hour less token expenses (over 1 year).

> Listen: every idea you've ever had, every single one, some cocaine-addled sales critter has had too. And they're better than you at SEO.

On most days I am resistant to stereotypes about "the welfare state" eroding incentives for entrepreneurism and innovation. But if you're going to wave it in my face like that, I might have to reconsider.

“Quality is not a metric” is the core argument here.

I say the only way to build a successful long term product is by focusing on quality, ESPECIALLY when the competition is shitting out crap.

> Listen: every idea you've ever had, every single one, some cocaine-addled sales critter has had too.

You can test this, if you talk about your idea to three people and one of them says we're already doing that and the other two think you're insane, you'd be safe.

The author seems to be complaining about the fact that you can't make a pet hobby project succeed purely out of technical excellence. First of all welcome to the club: musicians and artists and people of taste have long lived with the constant pain of watching the majority of people consume crap. Secondly: it's not true that products cannot succeed on the basis of pure technical excellence. Figma, TigerBeetle, and much software of the highest class have won the market on the basis of technical excellence, and it's the kind of thing amateurs with AI will never be able to build. You need to find an audience with a real problem and then produce a technically superior solution that an amateur with AI cannot.

Entering the SaaS market is dead because the market is saturated with mature products, not due to anything AI related. I've watched people try and enter the market we're in and fail because they can't build enough product to take any market share from anyone else.

Build something else!

The "elda för kråkorna" metaphor is perfect. I've watched three side projects in my circle get undercut by AI-generated clones with better SEO within weeks of launch. The uncomfortable truth is that the moat for small SaaS was never the code — it was distribution, and that game has completely changed.

>Yours actually works and is higher quality, because you know about things like TTFP and INP and "not putting your Supabase god-token in the client"? Oh, you sweet summer child: I take no pleasure in this but I need to tell you that these things don't matter anymore. Quality is not a metric anyone cares about in 2026.

Quality will matter the most in 2026. Specifically because the barrier-to-entry for making software is down there will of course be a lot of poor quality software, which will break, expose customer data, be bloated, etc. Customers will have more options, and this will allow them to be more discerning. Open source, clean code, low dependencies...these are things that can be evaluated by HN crowd types, but it's also something that an LLM can evaluate.

We are entering into an age of software taste. For those of us that have developed taste over the years, we become the taste makers in that we care how things are built, and know what we're looking for. This applies on the supply side, when our taste drives the LLM, and on the consumption side, when we can help the masses evaluate what to use and what not to use.

NB: this is all speculation expressed as fact, in keeping with the OP's style.

Someone needs a hug. Honestly I've started writing only to realize how much code output will be wasted over the next hour or two, so I just go back to coding the amazing product I'm working on with amazing agents, that would simply not be possible if I didn't have access to the AI tools I'm using. It's going to make many humans profoundly more safe. I'm very excited. I hope you are excited about your project too.

Has OP been at a company where sales people do this? I have, and I can tell you they have not gotten far.

There was one PM at my ex-job that showed a dashboard for... well... i honestly didnt understand. I think it was some uptime checks. It broke during his presentation.

There's a company I hired at that "built an ERP in 5 days and is shipping the product in June". Same thing happened, it broke when presenting. Basic feature suggestions just returned a "Yes, we can do that!" (they meant they can tell Claude to do it, not that the product could do it).

Maybe at some point non-engineers can prompt build, but for now I'd say we're pretty safe. I think engineers give themselves too little credit. Being able to read code is an amazing tool that can only be sharpened through skill.

Lastly, I think I commented this ~2 years ago as well. If your product is vibe-codable and is replacing customers, it's a shit product. Similarly, if you can outsource your product on fiverr, its's a shit product.

> "If Mastodon's not your jam, maybe star one of my GitHub repos. It's really the least you can do."

I like his sense of humour.

On the flipside, there are a lot of businesses that don't open their digital product to multiple markets or verticals because the cost (in money or focus) is too high. Distribution just got a lot easier, arguably about as easy as it should have been in the first place. If you already have a reasonable moat for your product in a smallish market, going broad is a lot more feasible now. I'm doing it now (with partners who own the core product) and its going very well.

I think a lot of opportunities are closing. But I also think a lot of new ones are being created. Pretty much impossible to predict. AI may end up being like "the bomber will always get through": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_thr...

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it's a depressing take to say that the best approach for self-preservation is to latch hard onto corporate

> And they're better than you at SEO

Based on Louis Rossmann's rant 3 days ago [1], it seems Gemini has got you covered on that front too.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uKZ84zwJI0

I mean just because it's easier to write software doesn't mean you can't have success building a business around software. You'll just need to build more features at a higher level of quality. When everyone has access to these tools the net effect will just be to elevate the overall quality of software which is good for everyone.

It was never easy after ~2010.

AI can self direct SEO pretty good, hate to be the bearer of bad news.

ok, but then to support him he suggests starring one of his github repos, isn't that just throwing out some breadcrumbs for the crows using his analogy?

If I understand it, the premise of this article is that because the marginal cost of software production is now free, now nobody can compete against garbage quality code sold by the slickest "sales critter", so everyone should just give up.

I mean, it seems at the very least, that open source and in-house production has a natural advantage here? If the marginal cost of software production is now free, then FOSS/in-house just got easier to create and maintain too. Does that make it easier for FOSS/in-house, both available without a subscription to an external third party, undermine "sales critter" SAAS, by the author's own premises?

> What's that you're saying? Yours actually works and is higher quality, because you know about things like TTFP and INP and "not putting your Supabase god-token in the client"? Oh, you sweet summer child: I take no pleasure in this but I need to tell you that these things don't matter anymore. Quality is not a metric anyone cares about in 2026.

That's funny and all but it can't really be true that quality doesn't matter. It has to matter at some point. Maybe it doesn't matter during the initial sales cycle; I've seen it happen: the CEO sees a slick demo that works, every user / developper rolls their eyes and try to warn them, they don't listen, and the deal is done.

But eventually if the thing that's supposed to be done, isn't, something will have to give. Even if at first they fire all the eye-rollers and replace them with obedient corporate drones, if the think isn't working and it's on the critical path, it will have to be replaced by something that actually does work.

I think the realistic take is to treat SaaS products like any other extremely skewed distribution, like income in sports.

Most people will barely make anything, some will be able to supplement their income, very few will be able to make a living. Even less will become "rich". For every product that blows up, there are thousands that will barely make anything.

But of course, it all depends on what your product does. If you make the millionth TODO / GenAI image editor / food calculator app and hope to make some money, good luck.

Meanwhile, in the Silicon Valley: “OpenAI should build Slack” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47012553

Yes, a very hyped mega-corp should be building and replacing all productivity software; why leave room for competitors when a single company can do it all? What can go wrong?

This is the kind of thing that anyone could have said at any time in history. Sure, it’s easier now to solve the kinds of problems that were hard a few years ago, but that just brings whole classes of previously “impossible” problems into the merely “hard” category. We’re just finding out what those are now, and if you can figure one out there’s money to be made.

You can only change the rules, you can never stop The Game™. Now, more than ever before, it's faster and easier to create something and deliver its perceived value at scale. Nerds used to rule the roost of tech because they were willing to invest the time and toil in obscurity. Now that's no longer the case. The only skill you need to have now is sales and showmanship. A chatbot can do the rest.

So nobody will ever start another successful software project? People will, what, just stop creating software? I understand people's apprehension because of the pace of change, but this is just silly.

He's wrong about SEO being the differentiator. Quality matters.

It's a huge trope to think your product didn't work for the market because the marketers beat you. I used to be that kind of developer until I made some products that people actually wanted.

But he's right that the software market is changing. Software will be easier to build and require less people to build it. So more, smaller companies will compete for market share. Margins will be cut and the consumers will get more of what they want for a lower price.

I think this is called a working market. It's what it looks like when capitalism actually works.

This could be the end of enshitification.

We really need a downvote button on blog posts

If you've ever tried to build something real with agentic AI, you know that it takes time. You can't (yet) snap your fingers and produce a fully market-viable clone of a SaaS product.

The specifics matter here. If you run a CRM for Dentists, can someone replicate your product in a weekend? I'm going to guess that dentists have some esoteric needs related to their CRM, and it's a little more complicated than an outsider might guess.

So what is the threat model? That a dentist is going to get fed up and try to DIY? I think you should encourage that, so they'll see what goes into it. That a 22 year old chooses "CRM for Dentists" as a thing to vibe-code over a weekend? Again, good luck with that.

I really dislike this SaaSocalypse fear mongering, because it's just not based in reality. Show me five examples of established SaaS companies being wiped out by vibe coding.

If dream of having a weekend-project turned $30k ARR SaaS is dead, good. It's an example of a tiny sliver of people losing their golden goose, so that everyone else in society can operate more efficiently.

One guy loses $2400/mo in revenue

200 pool cleaners can now easily track their clients filter change dates without paying $12/mo for a calendar script (something that 20 years ago would have been a one time $3 purchase).