Hacker News Reader

Comment by CharlieDigital | Hacker News Reader

    >  shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 1 person startups?

Here's the dirty secret: 1 person AI coding enabled startups don't want their customers to know that they are 1 engineer AI coding startups so they do not expose it or share that info. There is still a lot of negative sentiment associated with this.

I know 3 such founders; none would advertise to their customers the extent of their AI usage. There is also a consideration that if they advertise their 1 eng status and success, it might attract other competitors or the customers might think they can do it themselves (maybe possible, but not for 95% of them since some tech know how is still required) or customers would see it as a business risk.

All 3 have blown me away with what they are doing. All 3 have real, paying customers. (They occasionally reach out for some higher order architecture questions)

View on HN

As of the middle of the year, there was no increase in publicly available indicators of new startups at all [0]. No change in the trend in steam releases, domain name registrations, app store releases, etc. People might be able to keep the fact that they're a one person team that built the app with AI secret, but they wouldn't be able to keep the fact that they made an app secret. Unless someone has evidence that's changed dramatically in the last six months, I have to conclude that the reason we aren't seeing a wave of AI enabled SaaS startups isn't that they're keeping the fact that they're solo operations with AI a secret, but rather that no such wave actually exists.

[0] https://mikelovesrobots.substack.com/p/wheres-the-shovelware...

Can't speak for anyone else, but I personally know 3.

2 of the 3 existed as entities for more than a year already, but pivoted at least once (both were VC-funded but now doing something very different than what they started with when I first met founders) and ultimately let go of their offshore and contract engineers once AI became good enough some time early last year. Founders basically realized that the quality of code was as good or better than what they were getting from their engineers while reducing the turnaround time; now they can go from talking to customers to having a working prototype in the same day instead of waiting 24h+ for an offshore team. The other one started in November of 2024 and found traction around March.

So two companies went from multi-person teams to 1 person teams and 1 team was a 1 person eng team from the get-go (with a business-oriented partner).

I'd also point out that 2025 was a particularly volatile year because of shifts in the political and economic environment (including very high interest rates) so I wouldn't take your stat at face value without considering external factors that might affect the total number of net new business registrations.

It still remains true that building a product is not the same thing as building a business. It may be that we'll see less SaaS startups as companies find that they can just in-house software instead of buying. Who knows? Startup I'm at canceled one of our subscriptions because we ended up building an in-house replacement because it is now cheap enough and easy enough that we could.

This matches what I’ve been seeing as well. Small teams can move surprisingly fast now, but the bottleneck usually shifts from engineering to distribution and positioning.

We’ve found that building the product got easier, but turning it into a sustainable business still required just as much manual effort around sales, onboarding, and retention.

You're moving the goalposts; building the product never equaled writing some code, it's always involved all of the efforts you reference. The expectation is that you optimized the code generation and shifted the bottleneck, but are overall more productive (i.e. the cycle is shorter). If you're not iterating faster then there's be no productivity gain.

> Can't speak for anyone else, but I personally know 3.

I'm not saying your three friends/acquaintances don't exist, I'm saying the evidence suggests they aren't representative of a trend. This is consistent with the other evidence we have (e.g. studies which show that LLMs produce at best relatively modest gains in productivity, not enough for a one person team to do the work of even two people.

> I'd also point out that 2025 was a particularly volatile year because of shifts in the political and economic environment so I wouldn't take your stat at face value without considering external factors that might affect the total number of net new business registrations.

Sure, it's always possible that without LLMs there would have been a significant contraction in these metrics. The issue is exactly that though: you can always make that argument. In other words, you've rendered your claims unfalsifiable.

I'm not saying it's evidence for some larger trend; I'm presenting the reason why single-person teams might not advertise why they are single person and that these teams are not necessarily starting as single person teams, but sometimes collapsing down to single person teams.

Except in context that was very much what was suggested. The implication of the comment I replied to is that there actually are "a ton of 1 person startups" (and by implication, that LLMs do enable the massive increases in productivity that their proponents like to claim), but that they just keep the fact that they are quiet.

Maybe you don't mean to, but when you present an anecdote you're implying evidence of some trend, otherwise it's just a pointless statement. And unless a multi-person team is collapsing down into multiple single person teams, there's no increase in productivity and we're actually in a worse position as a whole.

Those companies weren’t multiple person teams. They were one person teams with contract work. Maybe you know the details of the kind of money they were paid or how involved they were with the work but that could mean so many things.

I’d have to say when I hire someone in Fiverr to make a logo for my app I’m not suddenly a multi-person team. If I use AI to make my logo instead of paying a human $50 to make one I didn’t exactly experience a productivity revolution.

The other thought that popped into my head is that offshore contractors have access to AI, too. So shouldn’t we see their output go up and prices go down? Again we have another facet of this lack of market indicators.

They were multi-person teams.

Some had employees (which were let go when they pivoted). Some were contractors doing all of the engineering work.

The majority of businesses fail within 5 years.

Are they using AI because it’s better or because they have no other choice?

If I hire two sandwich artists for 6 months but nobody buys my sandwiches, I don’t have much choice but to fire them.

This word “pivot” is strong.

    > Are they using AI because it’s better

Because it's better (versus the engineers they were able to hire).

    > If I hire two sandwich artists for 6 months but nobody buys my sandwiches

Pivot is strong and in both cases where they went n -> 1, the pivots were dramatic. One went from building a (credit) card switching SDK to building a legal assistant AI. One went from building a fin-tech compliance product to a CRM for managing collections.

Because they went back to the drawing board, they ended up letting go of their teams and started using AI to build MVPs and then found that they could ship faster and better.

This now seems like even less useful information than before.

They literally changed to doing an entirely different business.

This would be like saying I hired two sandwich artists, but sandwiches don’t sell well, so I fired my sandwich artists and now I run a coffee shop on my own.

You can choose to bury your head in the sand with word games. Or acknowledge that LLM is enabling single person startups. Up to you.

I'm sharing information, not presenting an argument. You seem to want to argue that... something, but it is not apparent to me what it is.

Whatever you choose to do with this information, it did not change reality.

I don't think cheaper/easier software development can be the limiting success factor for many startups. Success is more about the skills and business aptitude of the founder(s), which is why VCs invest more in people than ideas, and don't seem to flinch when founders pivot to something completely different.

I could see AI coding leading to more attempted startups, and more people shipping initial products and attempting to get traction with them, but whether they do get traction and achieve PMF, and are able to actually grow it into a business is going to come down to the startup expertise of the founders, not how quickly/cheaply the code of the product was written.

I expect you see the world this way because you are a software developer. People who know how to sell and understand the problems to solve do not routinely understand how to build software to solve those problems so they can sell them to customers. Now that the bar for building software is lowering, the world of building a startup is changing. A relatively newcomer to software is able to ship a medium complexity vibe-coded app to a few test customers and kick off revenues.

I agree that the bar for building software has dropped significantly, but I think the harder part still shows up right after the first few customers.

Shipping something workable is easier now, but understanding which problems are actually worth solving — and getting consistent feedback early — still seems to be the main separator between hobby projects and real businesses.

I totally concur. That said, technology is evolving fast, and I think it's clear that the bar for solving those problems with non-technical people will drop dramatically in the next 12 months.

But eventually people will catch up you can basically create a working product alone with the help of AI.

My prediction is that this will lead to a margin free-fall for many software products where the main moat is the software itself. And a lot of SaaS companies will also become redundant when the AI can code up a tailored solution in an hour for free.

You are discounting sales, marketing, and branding. Take drop shipping for example: anyone can do this, but the successful ones are those that know how to brand and market the product well.

Not to mention having the right mindset for startups and building a business.

The code and product is maybe only 20% of the story.

I'm not. That edge eventually converges to 0 when you have 10+ competitors that offer the same for 10x less money.

If you don't have some kind of cult following like Apple eventually you'll get margin-squeezed till death and all that marketing, sales, etc. will get cut down to stay afloat.

Of course all of the above is just my theory how this will play out in the long run, I'm no oracle by any means.

    > that offer the same for 10x less money.

Not likely because there is still a lower bound. These 1 person startups are winning partially because they are already 10x cheaper than the incumbents.

But beyond that, it's not likely that there are 10x the number of people who know the domain and have the right mindset plus appetite for risk.

I'm not entirely disagreeing. There are limits there that means we can't assume the margins will go to their theoretical minimum. But you're also in part assuming the models don't increasingly know the domain or know how to research the domain and compile the information for you.

They'll be squeezing margins out of a lot more than just the tech.

Discounting Apple, their products and their customers to a cult is at best jealousy but still blatantly wrong. Lots of competition has been trying to out-Apple them for decades with no luck, and it's not because an iPhone customer is stupid & brain-washed.

I predict that the commercial market for a lot of software will evaporate as people find that getting AI to whip up a custom solution that fits their unique problem space like a glove is actually cheaper and simpler than trying to make COTS software do the job. We're not quite here yet, but maybe in a few years.

> I predict that the commercial market for a lot of software will evaporate

Counterpoint: Windows, Oracle DB, etc. have had free/cheaper alternatives for decades and still thrived.

Yes/no. Regardless of the code complexity reduction there is still architecture, planning and implementation. Could someone come by and clone my work afterwards? Absolutely. Will they retain customers with only a little understanding of the product or model? Questionable.

You aren't just buying software, you're offloading liability of continued support and functionality.

Sure, but there's a whole lot of businesses already using custom solutions made with excel/access/etc that are held together with duct tape and chicken wire, so I think the adventurous spirit necessary is there.

There have always been hundreds or thousands of companies that want software engineers but simply don't have the revenue to support them. My first dev job was a small private company in exactly this spot. They basically paid me my salary for six months to figure out WordPress and PHP on the job having only ever done very basic programming stuff on my own in high school ~6 years prior.

The median dev salary across the entire US is something like $130k/yr. There are huge numbers of new or self-taught software devs in low cost of living areas of the country making $50-60k/yr.

In the same pattern there are a lot of businesses where these solutions are not efficient and they MOVED from them to expensive commercial software. It's actually an antipattern to build a bunch of in-house, Excel-based solutions - with AI or not - for these companies.

I think so too. But in the meantime there is a quiet goldrush for people who spot niches where they can extract decent (or a lot) of value right now, and for long enough to be worthwhile. If they can get scale enough that thinner margins makes for a worthwhile business when the market catches up, great. If they can't, then we stay lean we might make off with decent ROI.

But that is also a reason to be cautious of chasing capital and think hard about whether you can spend it sensibly fast enough to improve your own ROI...

E.g. I have a project right now where I won't consider taking VC cash because I don't think I can spend it fast enough to buy me enough additional leverage to make enough additional money to compensate for the dilution and the other usual shenanigans before I expect margins will be squeezed out of the niche in question. It also means I don't think the opportunity will ever scale above a certain level, but that's fine - it'll be a quick attempt at grabbing what profit I can.

Also, while we of course shouldn't diminish the potential moat created by understanding the product in favour of only value the tech, we need to also consider that AI's are a levelling factor there too. Claude knows (I've verified what it's said) more about the niche I'm vaguely talking about than I do - it knows pricing, it knows positioning/marketing, it knows conventions and requirements of the niche, and while I'm sure I could have found all of it myself starting from scratch too it shortcircuited an enormous amount of effort to get an infodump that let me know precisely what to look for to verify it. A lot of tech companies will find the institutional knowledge they thought would shore up their moat is worth a lot less than they thought.

> A lot of tech companies will find the institutional knowledge they thought would shore up their moat is worth a lot less than they thought.

I totally agree. I think going forward the primary value of SAS will be the embedded domain expertise in a pre-built product. The comparison of Asana versus Notion comes to mind for project management. Asana forces abstractions of good project management upon you, whereas Notion lets you build it yourself. I think this principle will scale to all software in the future, where the only real value of software or it becomes exported maintenance obligations and a predetermines domain abstraction.

But as you mentioned, I think companies will rapidly find that their own specific abstraction is worth a lot less than they believed.

This is mostly correct IMO.

SaaS is extremely vulnerable, companies will be able to modify open source tools to do exactly what they need, and agents will make managing those services easier. This will lead to downward pressure on SaaS prices, and cause them to become more like cloud data management platforms that they let customers build on top of rather than one-size-fits-all apps.

I agree with this completely. I forsee an era of enterprise level 'template' saas products that are expected to be tinkered with and highly customized. I think products like Notion that have an incredibly robust customizability and integration layer are going to thrive, where every single company can use a template engine to build extremely customized applications - and the barrier to building on top of these will essentially become the rate of human speech.

Perhaps for extremely basic products. Most non-engineers can barely write and untangle their messy thoughts and you think they can just build a spec for an AI to build a product? Hopefully I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

This is what gets me... Even at companies with relatively small engineering teams compared to company size, actually getting coherent requirements and buy-in from every stakeholder on a single direction was enough work that we didn't really struggle with getting things done.

Sure, there was some lead, but not nearly enough to 2x the team's productivity, let alone 10x.

Even when presented with something, there was still lead time turning that into something actually actionable as edge cases were sussed out.

I am one of those founders who does not want their customers to know. I have one specific very large customer that is quite an old school company. My software has become pretty pivotal for some of their workflows and if they knew it was one guy on his laptop keeping things afloat with the help of a mysterious AI I am pretty sure they'd reconsider our contract.

Most startup -> enterprise deals are like this in nature. Enterprise buyers are already wary of small startups (for various reasons). A 1 person startup? Wouldn't even get a meeting with the buyers in many cases even if your software was 10x cheaper and exactly solved the business problem.

I worked for a public health care Enterprise early in my career and I make a joke to one of the VPs once about how it seemed like the real career success would be finding one of our pain points as a patient or employee, leaving to start a company that solves that, and selling it back to us. He laughed and said several people had done that but you better take a half dozen executives with you or you'd never get the first meeting no matter how good the product was.

    > you better take a half dozen executives with you or you'd never get the first meeting no matter how good the product was

I spent ~16 years of my career in life sciences and this is also my experience. There's no way you get into an enterprise account with a pharma as a startup without a lot of deep connections; life sciences space is very high in regulatory requirements and risk and the risk/reward ratio with startups simply isn't worth it.

In my specific space, clinical trials can run for years. A company that might fold if they run out of runway? Non-starter. I was a member of a small company that did make this work and it required that we put our code in escrow with a large multi-national IT company that owned the support contract (customer paid us for licensing, paid multi-national IT company for support, our source code went into escrow).

Agreed, it's never been a better time to start a startup with a very small team.

The key (based on my exp with these 3) is the composition of the team.

At least 1 person on the team needs to have domain experience and if solo, that solo founder needs to have domain experience and good connections or the wherewithal to get the first handful of paying customers via cold calling, cold emails. The main challenge remains sales, marketing, and branding. There are free CRMs and anyone can build a CRM. Why do some CRMs succeed while others fail? Branding, marketing, awareness.

So I don't see it as "there will just be 10x more competitors" because I've built enough stuff that I failed to sell and used enough shitty software to know that the software itself is rarely the reason why people buy X over Y. It's because they didn't even know Y existed.

My biggest question now is - since now anyone can build a SaaS, and since everything is now optimized not for "employment" but for "enterprise" (run your own business), just how many 1-2 person companies can we build? I mean how many genuine sell-able ideas are there. Can we as a society have a 100,000s small software enterprises (and not a few hundred employing 1000s)?

I would love to start my own SaaS company, even if it generates $1000 a month I will be elated. And I have 20+ years of experience programming and in FinTech, but what do I build? Not to mention, without sales & marketing nothing will really work.

Two of the startups are lead by non-technical founders who have strong industry specific experience (legal and finance). The third has a partner that has industry experience (is the ICP).

So you definitely still need strong sales and marketing and a deep understanding of a business domain.

1 person and AI is not sufficient to create a business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com