Every tech company assumed they would be the benefactors, not victims, of AI. And investors now see that without the alleged AI growth, these companies at best look like stable utilities, not high growth stocks. At worse companies look like they make highly replaceable software as software stops being a moat.

Moreover they look like large, inefficient organizations with a lot of human veto points that prevent innovation (requiring more human coordination is an anti moat now)

▲

symfrog 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Was software ever a moat? Software typically only gave companies a small window of opportunity to turn a fleeting software advantage into a more resilient moat (network effects, switching costs etc.)

▲

softwaredoug 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, I would argue good (stable, fast, easy to use) software was somewhat of a moat and much harder before coding agents.

Stripe, Square, Shopify, Google, all thrived in some part because their services take a hard problem and make it easier to use. Now more people can take a hard problem and make it easier to use.

All you have to do is look around (esp 5+ years ago) and see the many many BAD, unstable, hard to use, slow, etc versions of these companies

▲

tonyedgecombe 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Windows was a moat but it looks more like an anchor now.

	▲	symfrog 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Windows' moat was not the operating system code, but that they were able to get distribution via IBM, and then grow an ecosystem of applications that were targeted at Windows, which created a snowball effect for further applications.