I've always argued the worse businesses to start are those that rely on some type of technological advantage. These business are extremely difficult and costly

I've always argued the worse businesses to start are those that rely on some type of technological advantage. These business are extremely difficult and costly to build because you're pushing at the edges of what's possible and they're also extremely easy to disrupt because it only takes one innovative team to completely erode any advantage you once had. The only exception to this is if you can use your technological advantage to capture a market, then once you have a dominate market position your continued survival no longer depends solely on your ability to maintain an absolute technological advantage. But even this strategy is risky long-term with companies like Intel and IBM being good examples or how even dominant market players can be disrupted if they continuously fail to keep up with the pace of innovation. My answer to you is probably not what you want to hear, but in my opinion if you're building a startup like this you should assume you're on limited time. You should only build the startup if you're genuinely passionate about the problem you're solving, and not because you believe what you're describing is a good long-term business opportunity (because it's not). If you want to build a businesses that isn't likely to be disrupted you should consider doing something more traditional. I highly doubt individuals running landscaping businesses are worried about technological disruption, for example.