[a]Software is an abstraction over or maybe an interface for computing, and computer science is an abstraction over physics and math.

Computer science will evolve as we find new ways of computing. I totally disagree with this statement.

[b]_Marked as resolved_

[c]_Re-opened_

[d]Something I'm wondering about is Chris' definition of software. If computing methods such as quantum or thermodynamic approaches, like what Extropic is building, become mainstream, developing interfaces to compute on top of them would require an entirely different programming approach. Just some thought dumps, though.

[e]It is becoming easier to build software, and I believe the future of  software will 1) be built with much smaller teams, and 2)  be more specialized, doing 1 or a few things better with an AI native approach. As software allows users to tackle more specialized tasks better, we will see human “generalists” emerge. Particularly GTM experts who can do as much as a small Marketing or Sales team can today, as more specialized AI tools and agents become ubiquitous.

[f]As a start-up founder, if you can't get your awesome product in front of the right users, you don't exist...

Distribution > Product

[g]Reply here with your take.

[h]If we continue down the current path, it will be extremely noisy and hard to get anything noticed, because it will be a bunch of people trying to do things individually. 

That's why I've been focused on the concept of building abundant systems - systems that are focused on humans, not data. Instead of trying to think about moats in the traditional sense, it becomes more about building collaborative ecosystems in which everyone can be successful. This reduces the pain of a high rate of change for people by creating systems that evolve.

(if it's ok to add links, I'm writing about this concept on my substack:  https://engineeringgenerosity.substack.com/p/introduction-to-abundant-systems)

[i]The ratio of makers and consumers will not be much different (assuming producers too shall be consumers), so we shall have the equilibrium.

[j]Software isn't an absolute solution. Building software was getting popularized due to many reasons. If software becomes even more saturated we might see an influx for building more infra systems like in education or government, and cultivating communities than apps.

[k]I loved Maggie Appleton's take that imagines homecooked software - ie those 1000x products working at small scale.  as a GOOD thing: https://maggieappleton.com/home-cooked-software

[l]But I guess the other core question is, if we're moving on from mass market industrial software, how does software scale and how does venture make VC scale money from it? I'd argue infra and platforms will always be needed to power both. So maybe this argument is more about SaaS and tools that truly don't solve problems.

[m]What I'm more interested is what software products will look like in x years, at this point we're at "intelligent software"

[n]I suspect when it’s extremely easy to build software, it’ll be more difficult to weed out bad ideas. It’ll be more and more difficult to find software that you need. Software has already gotten much easier to design and code in the past 10 years, and there are already more apps on the iOS App Store alone than you could possibly discover on your own. How much software does any one person need?

Software becoming increasingly easy to create with smaller teams will almost certainly make it cheaper. Maybe this will lead to a reduction in SaaS style subscription services? We have way too many subscriptions and it’s not sustainable. There’s some sort of analog with streaming music… easier than ever to throw together a song to pass into the void of unlimited searchable music. At the same time we’re seeing a perceived value reduction in music overall from listeners, and an increasingly difficult landscape for artists. Will the Apple Arcade style models of software become more common? One SaaS for all software and creators become like music artists making small penny royalties?

[o]Reply here with your take.

[p]Since execution is no longer a barrier I think finding really good ideas is hard. Going back to your post on finding non-obvious problems, founders who do this are bound to win in the coming future.

[q]Retention dynamics will change–the customer success criteria will be dynamic and will depend on complicated mix of variables—so sales will be far more closely integrated with in-product experience and value.

[r]1) Distribution & cutting through the noise. 2) Persuading jaded audiences to test you...? 3) In a no-code LLM enabled environment and a fast-build environment, the time, care, focus and craft to build something truly special.

[s]I don't think solving problems using software will be hard anymore, so I'd rule that out.

Selling and marketing will be harder, as there will be tons of similar products out there. I think market saturation is going to be a big challenge for founders.

Products will need to become extremely niche to stand out in the future.

[t]Reply here with your take.

[u]More engineers and designers will learn how to sell and more sales teams will know how design works (this should have been the case by now—we are already late).

[v]I think it's a world similar to what we live in today. 

To your point, there is a significant increase of low-code and no code, however there are still so many limitations. I actually think those who are great at building software will rise. Companies will be more diligent to spend on software and resources that actively solve problems vs. a bandaid solution.

No code does well, but do organizations remove any code stack because of it? Absolutely not.

You still need great talent to understand and implement the software that you build.

[w]Becomes more valuable - empathy

[x]Distribution becomes more valuable as production becomes commoditized

Hard to harvest data becomes more valuable + data becomes more expensive in some pockets as people realize the value it has.

Hard tech will still be hard, no change here.

Moving and acting on the real world becomes more valuable. Robotics and hardware become slightly more valuable only because software is so easy, a new world of demand unlocks

The human touch becomes slightly more, but not more than hand made bags + clothes are today. Utility remains paramount in all non luxury goods.

[y]Reply here with your take.

[z]Investors should be focused on how products are willing to integrate into changing ecosystems. If a startup is planning on taking over a whole industry, that's a bad sign, because there are an infinite number of potential solutions out there. That means investors need to focus on founders who understand the ecosystem and can integrate within it and are working to improve the ecosystem with their participation in it, not take it over and then become less efficient/effective over time.

[aa]Investors will watch for new slides that explain founders' intelligence, baked into product metrics.

[ab]Niche down on specific markets, and bet on products that solve extremely specific problems instead of generalised problems.

Founder-Market fit is going to be a huge factor ig