The only new things or features I’ve really seen are related to AI. So it’s just AI adding AI to stuff. I’m still waiting for this big renaissance of innovation.
The last startup boom began in the mid-2000's (around when Y Combinator began, you can read all about it on Paul's blog), when cloud computing was still new and lowered the cost of creating online businesses. It was also in the wake of the tech bust - a lot of tech employees became unemployed.
My view is, when the layoffs complete, the dust settles and you have millions of tech workers who are willing to accept only equity, with a new technology they can rent for $200 a month from DeepSeek or Anthropic or OpenAI, we may see the green shoots of a new wave of disruption.
People don't just jump social networks because a new one exist, there has to be a compelling reason to migrate over to it. And for a lot of people, there needs to be a sufficient number of people (and probably existing friends) already using the app for them to expend the effort to start using it.
It's not like there haven't been other attempts at competitors for these over the years, and you haven't heard about them probably because none of them ever got any traction. And that takes more than just building software.
Like DuckDuckGo has been competing with Google search for years (it first came out back in 2008, it looks like), and likely is way better developed than anything someone will crank out with A.I. in a short period of time. And it still has a tiny fraction of Google's marketshare.
I'm not saying there won't eventually be other competitors to these, but it'll take more than just whipping up an MVP with A.I. in a few weeks.
I thought that was the whole idea?
Lemon market - maybe - but it remains to be seen IMO. The market seems almost entirely unrealized. There are only a few major AI companies in the media, and it seems like innovation is largely directionless or stalled.
I haven't really seen any "startup boom" for AI yet. It's all the same kind of AI wrapper startup still. The most innovative thing in San Francisco right now is AI complaince.... Compliance... I'll leave you with that.
1) LLMs just aren't good enough
2) Making a billion dollar company is too expensive. Netflix lost money for years. Amazon lost money for years. Tesla lost money for a decade. Spotify took 18 years to become profitable. The AI companies are losing billions of dollars each month.
And 2 - yeah I really mean "product focused" companies, not these YC AI wrapper replicas you see everywhere (no offense to YC but hey, they know what they are doing lol). Those companies must be only there to drive usage to the model providers they wrap.
The disruptive potential is not limited to those who use AI, or those who offer it in their product to end users. The potential is here regardless. Because of the fact workers use it in their workflows - in Adobe software, in their IDE, and so-on, it's effectively here.
The company does not need to do anything special - just hire.
Here is an example of software that can scale with a single person assuming AI can write software: a web-based alternative to Photoshop built on wasm. Figma is analogous to that and it's worth $10Bn.
I agree with you that it doesn't replace a person, but it certainly makes code a lot cheaper.
If code is cheaper than ever, and the earning potential is the same. Why aren't investors all over it?
And I'll 1-up your Photoshop example with https://photopea.com
Made by 1 person, I use it literally every day.
The playing field is now completely level with any and all comers who want to attack Adobe. You now not only have one huge competitor, but the potential for hundreds of other competitors.
How are you going to convince someone that your execution is the one that's going to displace Adobe and steal market share? Why would I invest in your variant rather than one of your competitors?
The logical conclusion of this is that even if Adobe released its source and the theoretical price drops to zero, you're finding yourself at best in the same situation as Linux distro companies in 1999.
Assuming perfect LLM code generation (a huge assumption that is nowhere close to reality), a company built on this is going to replay the same open source dynamics, with additional steps/expense.
The reality is, Photopea is unique because no one with LLMs can easily produce something similar. Also Photopea does not compare to Adobe offering similar to how Figma does. Not even close.
Why build a new Google when the potential Google customers now just get their results from LLMs instead of SERPs?
How to be the next Jobs when there's no actual new product, just essentially an assistant tool?
How to create the next Disney, Netflix, Blizzard or Pixar when LLM's are still not good enough to produce quality content and many people are also starting to despise AI generated content? Art is still an intrinsic Human thing, even if LLMs are able to produce it.
So, although these LLMs are super amazing and definitely revolutionary, this whole AI/AGI hype is still a bit on bubble territory imho so I'm not really sure we'll see what you're hinting at with this generation of LLMs.
Also, wasn't AI supposed to be the last product we'd ever need to invent and then it's utopia and singing kumbaya for all eternity?
We won't need new companies, big personalities or heroes once Skynet/Hal9000/GLaDOS/Agent Smith/etc are in charge :)
And we do see that (Proton, DuckDuckGo, even iCloud is becoming very Google-like in recent years).
As for "AI is not good enough" I remain unconvinced - I've seen production quality work, granted not 1-shot from a model but produced by a talented artist.
I never said AGI, (I believe that's only a marketing term from OpenAI). The other stuff at the end of your comment has nothing to do with what I'm talking about here! I really am focused on the low cost of code, video, and other media compared to the massive opportunity to serve content to people worldwide and how much money and disruptive potential is being left on table.
But here's another thought: Code and pixels are still cheaper than ever before.
Another one: The earning potential from code and pixels is the same or greater than it was before AI.
Put it together. If it was real estate where land was cheap but selling at the same rate as before, then investors would be all over it.
Innovation is something you have to believe in - I get that - but from a purely finance perspective why is there not a massive movement to obtain swaths of low cost, high potential IP? Data, engagement, emails and cards on file. Series A-F growth, greater fools and IPOs - either way it's massively generative of productive wealth, and you'll get a few game changers here and there.
I fail to see why it's not a great opportunity for, say, a $1B+ fund in just about any category.
Man I’m sick of Faceboogle!
Isn’t anyone else yearning for some je ne sais quoi
"How Photopea Quietly Beat Adobe into a $2.8M Business" – https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/team-budget-problem-how-photo...
I wouldn't bet against him yet.