Part me wants to agree the picture painted here, but bits like the one below make the whole thing out to be an veiled appeal for more naive investment targets w

Part me wants to agree the picture painted here, but bits like the one below make the whole thing out to be an veiled appeal for more naive investment targets without the myriad complications of engineers. Basically, they'd like a lazy Susan of people who've done a bunch of leg work on a 'lego' app or website and are ready to accept $50K for 60%, Shark Tank style. >'As software becomes a high-impact, low-skill trade, we decouple the technical ability and experience needed to write tricky software from the ability to solve problems for people.' Not exactly. In keeping with the analogies to traditional infrastructure and trades. This sort of commoditization of labor allows a certain class of problems to be solved - repeatable, fairly well-understood ones for which there are ready instructions and appropriate 'legos' available. Providers of these services race to the bottom and have to be kept in check with codes and consumer paid inspections to ensure that their snap-together builds meet barest minimums of safety and sensible design. In this race to the bottom, implementers don't care and won't pay for better components, just cheaper ones that meet the minimum spec. There's good reason people loathe calling a plumber or HVAC repairman as much as they love certain tech companies known for their design and engineering. This is probably fine for money men, but neutral to bad for nearly everybody else.