There is no such thing as "enough" software—not if you believe that every individual is unique. The reason most software looks and feels the same today is simply because the cost of development is too high. To achieve economies of scale, we’ve been forced into "one-size-fits-all" solutions.

It’s just like industrial manufacturing: we buy standard-sized clothes and shoes not because they fit perfectly, but because custom tailoring is too expensive. But with AI and Agents, we are finally entering the era of "bespoke software." Why can't my UI layout adapt to my personal habits? Why can't my icons change color every day based on my mood? We are moving from mass production to individual creation. It’s an incredible time to be alive—we finally have the tools to build software that actually fits the human, rather than forcing the human to fit the software.

Customers want a hole in the wall, not drill , drill is just one of the tool that can make the hole happen (a manual hammer works too but too time consuming and less accuracy)

Software is just one of the ways for users to achieve their desired outcome (eg: keeping track of business expenses / flow etc) , excel can do it, but some other software might make it easier than excel, with better UI etc.

If you want to succeed in making software, study the users workflow rigorously. "Users don't love software, users tolerate software to achieve the outcome they want"

A different angle: I think a lot of software is not accessible due to friction points and interfaces. Non-compatible interfaces, and simply being proprietary for business/incentive reasons.

So, you might ask "Why are you building X when Y exists". The answer is usually something to the effect of "I can't interface with Y". Programming languages themselves are one of these obstacle. So is linking to system libraries. (e.g. many C and C++ code bases) C-FFI sometimes makes this easier though.

I value low-friction interfaces in software, and I think this is usually not done well.

Another example: I think this is why I dislike Async rust so much. It places a barrier within the language.

Some concrete anecdotes from the past few days: Why am I writing SPME algorithms, asking an LLM to implement a linear constraint solver, etc? Those and many more algorithms that have existed and been heavily used for decades? No/shitty rust libs, and the C/C++ libs have no good way I can interface with, aren't documented well, license concerns etc. I.e., I could try to re-use, but instead re-write because it's, surprisingly, the lower-friction option.

People lament re-inventing wheels, but often miss that the off-the-shelf wheels each have their own bolt patterns, brake interfaces, and dimensions. And sometimes they look solid, but have subtle defects.

I think Jevons Paradox applies here: as software becomes cheaper and more efficient to produce (especially with LLMs), the demand for it actually increases rather than decreases.

There is likely 2-orders of magnitude demand for more software than currently exists. Speaking for myself, I have so many different apps I would like to have but would not be commercially viable to build because the problem it solves is very specific to my circumstance. The ROI now makes sense now that I can spin up Claude Code and build apps for these use cases in an a couple of hours so I have a suite of apps that are really just for me.

It's been more than 80 years since the publication of "As we may think"[1,2], which called for the Memex, which we've discussed here at length.

We still don't have a Memex. We got close once.

We also don't have capability based operating systems in daily use.

There's a ton of software we still don't have, and need.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-m...

[2] https://worrydream.com/refs/Bush%20-%20As%20We%20May%20Think...

It's not rare that I wish there were software that would do something, but it doesn't exist or what does exist is terrible. So yes, there is at least some need and demand for more software.

I think many engineers in HN have an attitude of "I need this app to do X". I usually consider that a convenience, not a real need. Otherwise, they would be searching for the actual tool solving their X and wouldn't stop until finding it

Taken that my definition of "need" is pretty strict, but I don't think the world needs more tech, lately.

Name three software that are great for selling event tickets.

There are thousands of ticketed events taking place right now, maybe even millions.

Probably less, actually.

Most of what passes for "software" these days is basically some niche hardcoded workflow that falls to pieces if you try to do anything even the slightest bit different.

Demand and need are two different things.

Does the world need more software? No, not really.

Does the world want (and demand) more software? Absolutely, all the time.

There's a discovery problem, and with AI tools, it's easier to write your own than discover if a particular tool is what you want.

Currently we have a cycle of obsoleting hardware necessitating re-inventing software for the new platforms. So technically, yes.

I think, there are still tools that makes people live better.

No, at the end of the day most of the problem I run into are not software problems. “More software” will not fix this. Trying to encode these problems in a way that Software can represent will not fix this. It will just cause more issues.

we need more organic food and gardens to be honest but ya also software