Hacker News Reader

Comment by nilkn | Hacker News Reader

I find people's view is based on how much they're personally "winning" financially. If they're making money, then daily life seems more about building. If they're not making money, then the oppressive cost of living makes money seem all-important in the culture (which, in fact, it is and has been for generations).

SF and the Bay Area are constantly shuffling through and recombining ideas. What generated money relatively easily in 2010 would've started becoming low value in 2018, rapidly approaching an asymptote of relative uselessness today. 2018 is about the point where you needed to be pivoting to AI if you really wanted to remain part of the city's "upper class", where money feels like it doesn't matter because it's abundant and automatic. 2010 was the era of mobile apps.

View on HN

I think it is interesting how now, a lot of the selling to individuals regarding AI is the ability to do what was popular in 2010 (building apps, websites, games) is easy now due to AI. I know so many people who have made workout apps, CRMs, planners, etc. that are baffled by why their work isn't picking up traction (keep in mind, we aren't in SV).

Makes me wonder how long we have before, "create your own ChatGPT" becomes the next big thing and people wonder why their "AI Labs" aren't making as much as the big boys.

> Makes me wonder how long we have before, "create your own ChatGPT" becomes the next big thing and people wonder why their "AI Labs" aren't making as much as the big boys.

We're already there. It seems like every intern I see has built a custom chatbot with a RAG pipeline integrated into an internal application.

And every legacy SaaS is paying millions in consulting to add the same to their app.

You can still get traction for your workout apps, CRMs etc with the right market research (you need to find a niche) and the right marketing.

There are gazillions of candy crush remakes, but Royal Match, launched in 2021, still made it to the top in revenue. It was not thanks to some existing monopolist pushing it, but thanks to a) ginormous marketing budget and b) relentless execution and experience of making mobile games before, i.e. you know what works, what doesn't, how to extract maximum amount of revenue, etc.

https://naavik.co/digest/royal-match-finding-success-through...

https://naavik.co/digest/why-dream-games-success-is-a-challe...

Many people seemingly have trouble grasping that baselines can shift.

And then they get into mental contortions as to why getting 2x or 3x better in an absolute sense doesn’t budge the needle much.

> It was not thanks to some existing monopolist pushing it, but thanks to a) ginormous marketing budget and b) relentless execution and experience of making mobile games before

Er... so you don't need to be a monopolist, just have a massive amount of existing capital and deep understanding of the field?

An LLM can build novel things if guided by a human with a novel idea.

The issue is that simple and novel can also be copied easily (anyone can just point an LLM at the target and ask it to build a local personal version). The days of making money from this class of app are over.

Novel and very complex ideas will still make money, but outside of gaming are usually niche markets.

Novel and moderately complex apps will have to build their own moats to prevent copying - heavy server side rendering, server logic processing, and an idea that can't be re-implemented on simple CRUD architecture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com