5 ms·

Why would it stop with just developer layoffs? When software companies rely on LLM providers to run their business, I’d argue we‘ll see a massive bust of these

by p2detar 4mo ago

Why would it stop with just developer layoffs? When software companies rely on LLM providers to run their business, I’d argue we‘ll see a massive bust of these companies around the world - from on-prem products to SaaS. Customers may build the software they need entirely in-house or via prompt-engineer consultants, without the need to buy software tools like today. It could be a very very different world.

davnicwil 4mo ago
This won't happen in most cases because the valuable thing is largely the knowledge encoded in the software, which the buyers of the software don't have and don't want to have since they're focused on their own business. There's also, of course, the not insignificant value in the software itself actually working, being operated, being updated when necessary, all of that. Again just extra hassle no business will want to shoulder when they can just buy something that does it for them.
- ai_fry_ur_brain 4mo ago
  Why would I build my own CRM instead of paying 50k a year or whatever? The engineer plus tokens for maintenance will cost you way more than 50k. These people are delusional and just repeating delusional vibe coder tweets.
  - bix6 4mo ago
    Not every business has $50k for a CRM
    - dakolli 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - horsawlarway 4mo ago
        I'm going to throw out two counter arguments. 1. There is value in a tool that solves precisely your needs, in the way you want it solved. I've repeatedly seen enterprise SaaS purchases where the company ends up wrapping/layering on top additional tooling, software, and infra to solve core needs that are absent (or misaligned) from the saas tooling, but required for their specific usage. I've directly experienced this with: analytics tooling, customer survey tooling, feature flag tooling, and interview tooling. If your going to dedicate a dev anyways - the numbers can change here. Is this every SaaS product for every business? Fuck no - but there are products that might be adjacant to your core business where you have both strong preferences & experience, are already spending for customization, and now it makes sense to pull the whole thing in-house. 2. The 50k/m crm is competing with that 500/m crm. which realistically appears to soon be competing with that 50/m. Even if we stick with your stated observation that end businesses don't benefit from building their own tooling (which is fair and often true, although I'd wager it's not as clear-cut as you imply) - you're dismissing competition that is absolutely willing to undercut the market because they can slip on quality (slop - as you say) but still serve a need to customers who place cost as the primary buying metric. If the customer is better served by the 500/m crm, why stop there? Why not go for the 100/m crm? The 50/m crm? Why not chug on down to the lowest possible cost competition, which likely will be 2-5 guys with an llm they ask to go copy "[insert crm of choice]", and then bill just slightly over infra costs. Or the other thing I'm seeing happen in a lot of spaces right now... the "do it all" SaaS companies, that are pumping out into adjacent verticals that previously would have been too expensive to develop. The bill stays the same, but now it's not just a crm, it's the original crm, plus a clone of all the adjacent market leaders... scheduling, billing & invoicing, marketing, SEO, site hosting and design, social engagement, etc... One SaaS elbowing into other verticals but keeping the bill the same, which I consider functionally equivalent to the competing on price, just wrapped in a different flavor (it won't be 2 dudes in a basement, it'll be 2 dudes on the "crm" squad in a bigger eng dept).
        abc123abc123 4mo ago
        50!?! If I needed, I could get CRM SaaS for 10 a month.
      - bix6 4mo ago
        Man your comment became so unhinged. I have personally replaced multiple tools that cost me money every month and now cost me $0/mo. They are low stakes but they work and have near zero maintenance (only changes are me adding features or fixing the occasional bug I missed). Why would I pay someone even $10/mo when I now have a $0/mo solution?
        dakolli 4mo ago
        [flagged]
  - human305893 4mo ago
    Hell, there is a lot of really good open source software that fits most peoples needs already, that can be self hosted and costs nothing but the running of it. But people still pay for the SaaS product. Because you're not just paying for software. you're paying for support, uptime, compliance etc. These people think that SaaS is dead confuse me.
- computerdork 4mo ago
  agreed. Also, data security, data compliance, legal, customer support, operations... Yeah, SaaS is not going anywhere soon.
rfgplk 4mo ago
> Customers may build the software they need entirely in-house or via prompt-engineer consultants, without the need to buy software tools like today. It could be a very very different world. Already happening. I know of a few places that have gotten such large gains from LLMs that they know have their engineers working on creating homegrown ports of popular services (Docker etc.).
- shruggedatlas 4mo ago
  It seems to me that Docker should be far, far down the list on services to recreate in-house with AI.
  - LtWorf 4mo ago
    But since it's open source the AI is trained on it so it can actually do it :D
  - ai_fry_ur_brain 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- camdenreslink 4mo ago
  Why would you create a homegrown port of Docker? Docker the container software, or Dockerhub the image repository? This is just confusing. If you didn't want to use Docker there is a perfectly good well tested alternative called Podman with wide adoption.
- _heimdall 4mo ago
  Homegrown ports of calendly or jira seem feasible, and arguably a good business decision. Homegrown versions of docker seem ridiculous as a starting point, even if its possible to do today there is much lower hanging fruit to go after first.
- weakfish 4mo ago

by p2detar 4mo ago

davnicwil 4mo ago

This won't happen in most cases because the valuable thing is largely the knowledge encoded in the software, which the buyers of the software don't have and don't want to have since they're focused on their own business. There's also, of course, the not insignificant value in the software itself actually working, being operated, being updated when necessary, all of that. Again just extra hassle no business will want to shoulder when they can just buy something that does it for them.

ai_fry_ur_brain 4mo ago
Why would I build my own CRM instead of paying 50k a year or whatever? The engineer plus tokens for maintenance will cost you way more than 50k. These people are delusional and just repeating delusional vibe coder tweets.
- bix6 4mo ago
  Not every business has $50k for a CRM
  - dakolli 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - horsawlarway 4mo ago
      I'm going to throw out two counter arguments. 1. There is value in a tool that solves precisely your needs, in the way you want it solved. I've repeatedly seen enterprise SaaS purchases where the company ends up wrapping/layering on top additional tooling, software, and infra to solve core needs that are absent (or misaligned) from the saas tooling, but required for their specific usage. I've directly experienced this with: analytics tooling, customer survey tooling, feature flag tooling, and interview tooling. If your going to dedicate a dev anyways - the numbers can change here. Is this every SaaS product for every business? Fuck no - but there are products that might be adjacant to your core business where you have both strong preferences & experience, are already spending for customization, and now it makes sense to pull the whole thing in-house. 2. The 50k/m crm is competing with that 500/m crm. which realistically appears to soon be competing with that 50/m. Even if we stick with your stated observation that end businesses don't benefit from building their own tooling (which is fair and often true, although I'd wager it's not as clear-cut as you imply) - you're dismissing competition that is absolutely willing to undercut the market because they can slip on quality (slop - as you say) but still serve a need to customers who place cost as the primary buying metric. If the customer is better served by the 500/m crm, why stop there? Why not go for the 100/m crm? The 50/m crm? Why not chug on down to the lowest possible cost competition, which likely will be 2-5 guys with an llm they ask to go copy "[insert crm of choice]", and then bill just slightly over infra costs. Or the other thing I'm seeing happen in a lot of spaces right now... the "do it all" SaaS companies, that are pumping out into adjacent verticals that previously would have been too expensive to develop. The bill stays the same, but now it's not just a crm, it's the original crm, plus a clone of all the adjacent market leaders... scheduling, billing & invoicing, marketing, SEO, site hosting and design, social engagement, etc... One SaaS elbowing into other verticals but keeping the bill the same, which I consider functionally equivalent to the competing on price, just wrapped in a different flavor (it won't be 2 dudes in a basement, it'll be 2 dudes on the "crm" squad in a bigger eng dept).
      - abc123abc123 4mo ago
        50!?! If I needed, I could get CRM SaaS for 10 a month.
    - bix6 4mo ago
      Man your comment became so unhinged. I have personally replaced multiple tools that cost me money every month and now cost me $0/mo. They are low stakes but they work and have near zero maintenance (only changes are me adding features or fixing the occasional bug I missed). Why would I pay someone even $10/mo when I now have a $0/mo solution?
      - dakolli 4mo ago
        [flagged]
- human305893 4mo ago
  Hell, there is a lot of really good open source software that fits most peoples needs already, that can be self hosted and costs nothing but the running of it. But people still pay for the SaaS product. Because you're not just paying for software. you're paying for support, uptime, compliance etc. These people think that SaaS is dead confuse me.
computerdork 4mo ago
agreed. Also, data security, data compliance, legal, customer support, operations... Yeah, SaaS is not going anywhere soon.

rfgplk 4mo ago

> Customers may build the software they need entirely in-house or via prompt-engineer consultants, without the need to buy software tools like today. It could be a very very different world. Already happening. I know of a few places that have gotten such large gains from LLMs that they know have their engineers working on creating homegrown ports of popular services (Docker etc.).

shruggedatlas 4mo ago
It seems to me that Docker should be far, far down the list on services to recreate in-house with AI.
- LtWorf 4mo ago
  But since it's open source the AI is trained on it so it can actually do it :D
- ai_fry_ur_brain 4mo ago
  [flagged]
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
camdenreslink 4mo ago
Why would you create a homegrown port of Docker? Docker the container software, or Dockerhub the image repository? This is just confusing. If you didn't want to use Docker there is a perfectly good well tested alternative called Podman with wide adoption.
_heimdall 4mo ago
Homegrown ports of calendly or jira seem feasible, and arguably a good business decision. Homegrown versions of docker seem ridiculous as a starting point, even if its possible to do today there is much lower hanging fruit to go after first.
weakfish 4mo ago