Hacker News Reader

Comment by bee_rider | Hacker News Reader

What I get from the article is that, proving that a company will stick around for a while after you’ve subscribed is hard now, because anybody can AI generate the general vibe of the marketing department of a big established player. This seems like it’ll be devastating for companies whose business model requires signing new users up for ongoing subscriptions.

Maybe it could lead to a resurgence of the business model where you buy a program and don’t have to get married to the company that supports it, though?

I’d love it if the business model of “buy our buggy product now, we’ll maybe patch it later” died.

View on HN

that's exactly my point - yes

you need to prove beyond a doubt that YOU are the right one to buy from, because it's so easy for 3 Stanford dropouts in a trenchcoat to make a seemingly successful business in just a few days of vibecoding.

> 3 stanford dropouts in a trenchcoat

I'm using this

please do, i've been forcing it on people for a year now

We already got your money, what do we need to work for again?

Yeah.

The modern software market actually seems like a total inversion of normal human bartering and trade relationships, actually…

In Ye Olden Days, you go to the blacksmith, and buy some horseshoes. You expect the things to work, they are simple enough that you can do a cursory check and at least see if they are plausibly shaped, and then you put them on your horse and they either work or they don’t. Later you sell him some carrots, buy a pot: you have an ongoing relationship checkpointed by ongoing completed tasks. There were shitty blacksmiths and scummy farmers, but at some point you get a model of how shitty the blacksmith is and adjust your expectations appropriately (and maybe try to find somebody better when you need nails).

Ongoing contracts were the domain of specialists and somewhat fraught with risk. Big trust (and associated mechanics, reputation and prestige). Now we’re negotiating an ongoing contracts for our everyday tools, it is totally bizarre.

> In Ye Olden Days, you go to the blacksmith, and buy some horseshoes. You expect the things to work, they are simple enough that you can do a cursory check and at least see if they are plausibly shaped, and then you put them on your horse and they either work or they don’t

Nit: that is not how it worked. You took your horse to the blacksmith and he (almost always he - blacksmiths benefit from testosterone even if we ignore the rampant sexism) make shoes to fit. You knew it was good because the horse could still walk (if the blacksmith messes up that puts a nail in their flesh instead of the hoof and the horse won't walk for a few days while it heals). In 1600 he made the shoes right there for the horse, in 1800 he bought factory made horseshoes and adjusted them. Either way you never see the horseshoes until they are one the horse and your check is only that the horse can still walk.

The annoying thing is, there was a voice in the back of my head saying “I’m pretty sure the blacksmith was more involved in the horse-shoeing process” as I wrote the post, but I’d already written enough of the post that I didn’t want to bother checking.

Well, no worries. If you subscribe to the post+ service I’ll fix it in a couple years, promise.

I think the point is that nobody will give companies money unless the product already works. No more "but in a month this'll get a really cool update that'll add all these features". If you can't trust that a company will continue to exist, you have to be confident that what you're buying is acceptable in its current state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com