Why are investors still investing in SAAS products like this? I've heard some investors made rather blunt statements about such investments being a very hard sell to them at this point. Clearly somebody believes differently here.

We have AI now. AI tools are pretty handy with Git. I've not manually resolved git conflicts in months now. That's more or less a solved problem for me. Mostly codex creates and manages pull requests for me. I also have it manage my GitHub issues on some projects. For some things, I also let it do release management with elaborate checklists, release prep, and driving automation for package deployment via github actions triggered via tags, and then creating the gh release and attaching binaries. In short, I just give a thumbs up and all the right things happen.

To be blunt, I think a SAAS service that tries to make Git nicer to use is a going to be a bit redundant. I don't think AI tools really need that help. Or a git replacement. And people will mostly be delegating whatever it is they still do manually with Git pretty soon. I've made that switch already because I'm an early adopter. And because I'm lazy and it seems AI is more disciplined at following good practices and process than I am.

▲

bombcar 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's obvious that GitButt wants to be bought by one of the AI providers so they can add it as a feature to their subscription.

▲

faangguyindia 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Many investment decisions are taken by people who get cut of investment as fees.

Wealthy people don't have time to do all due diligence and vetting specially when random startups become unicorn.

▲

ozozozd 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

git isn’t Saas.

git ≠ GitHub

▲

jillesvangurp 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The article is about a $17M funding round for GitButler. Which I assume has some revenue plan that you might qualify as SAAS. Correct me if I'm wrong.

▲

jampekka 5 hours ago | parent [-]

There seems to be a bit of a trend that dev adjancent open source companies with not much monetization strategy are being bought off by AI giants. Most prominently Anthopic bought bun, OpenAI is buying Astral. So that may be the exit plan too.

Not sure what the business logic is. Maybe they are mostly acquihire. Or the companies just have so much money to throw around they just spray it everywhere. Whatever the reason, if the tools remain open source, the result for devs is probably better open source tools. At least until enshittification begins when the companies run out of funding, but hopefully the tools remain forkable.

	▲	8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

esafak 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you think like that why invest in software at all; the AI will do everything?

Does AI make reading or writing stacked PRs any nicer? No, it does not.

▲

satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If you think like that why invest in software at all; the AI will do everything?

Correct, hence the "SaaSpocalypse" phenomenon in recent weeks. Investors are slowly becoming disinterested in investing in software anymore precisely because models are good enough now to replicate any SaaS pretty easily, which still requires effort but is less so than paying for a SaaS particularly in large organizations which are charged per seat.

▲

Aperocky 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It does though.. you don't have agents that can connect to github or wherever your git mirrors are and comment on PRs?

▲

lan321 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The comments stop me from marking MRs with bad issues as ready, but if reviewing it's not really helpful.

Maybe if I were reviewing some random dude's code, where I have no idea what he's been working on...

▲

esafak 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't you read the PRs?

	▲	Aperocky an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but my agents also do. The whole concept of PR is that you want additional looks on the code, and multiple agents working adversarially on PRs with philosophical rules are really nice.