To follow this up, one of my favorite channels on Youtube is Outdoor Boys. It's just a father who made videos once a week doing outdoor things like camping with his family. He has amassed billions of views on his channel. Literally a one-man operation. He does all the filming, editing himself. No marketing. His channel got so popular that he had to quit to protect his family from fame.

Many large production companies in the 2000s would have been extremely happy with that many views. They would have laughed you out of the building if you told them a single person could ever produce compelling enough video content and get at many viewers.

YouTube is a platform, it's not a product. And in this case, created a new market. A market in which, by the way, still very few people (relative to those who try) are successful. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage would be much smaller than 10%.

A quick search leads to different answer, but https://alanspicer.com/what-percentage-of-youtubers-make-mon... suggests that 0.25% of all YouTube channels makes any money (not good money, any money). Which means 99.75% earns 0$.

Basically I would flip the question and ask: if you could produce videos now very simply with AI and so could other 10000 people, how many of the new channels do you think will be successful? If anything, the YouTube example shows you exactly that it doesn't matter than 1000000 people now can produce content with low overhead, just a handful of them will be successful, because the market of companies available to spend money to sponsor through channels and the men hours of eyeballs on videos are both limited.

Talking about companies that just produce products, either you come up with something new (and create a new market), or you come up with something better (you take shares of an existing market). Having 10000 companies producing - say - digital editing software won't make suddenly increase by 10000x the number of people in need of digital editing software. Which means that among those 10000 there will be a few very good products which will eat all the market (like it is now), with the usual Paretian distribution.

The idea that many companies with smaller overhead can split the market evenly and survive might (and it's a big hopeful might) work on physical companies selling local and physical products (I.e., splitting the market geographically), but for software products I cannot even imagine it happening.

New markets are created all the time, and it's great if maybe smaller companies (or co-ops) could take over those markets rather than big corporations, but the way the market distribution happens I don't think will be affected. I don't see any reason why this should change with many more companies in the same market. I also don't think that 10000 new companies will create 10000 new markets, because that depends on ideas (and luck, and context, and regulation, etc.), not necessarily on resources available,

Because: 1. One person companies are better at giving the wealth to the worker. 2. With thousands of companies the products can be more targeted and each product can serve fewer people and still be profitable

Then companies won't need to spam you to convince you that you need something you don't. Or that their product will help you in ways it can't.

Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life.

And if it's so cheap and bespoke, why buying it and not making it in house? What about access to people with know-how of that product? You use a product that only 4 other companies use, you can be sure you won't find any new hire that knows how to use it.

To me it seems the reality works in the opposite way. Among the many products built, some will be successful and will swallow the whole market, like now with basically any software or SaaS product.

No? I dont see any indication that this would be a good idea. Or even looked for.