I agree. I think people generally want a mix of good enough, easy, and something they already know.

The competition I see is from two separate directions, 1) AI companies training on the prompts you send them 2) users building their own a la carte solutions.

I don't think it entirely erases Saas, but it does take a huge bite out of it. Building a Saas product seems somewhat trivial at this point.

The larger hurdle now looks like having startup capital (free time to completely fail, or money to pay multiple founders to do that.) That's the risk, and the reward is income generated over time.

There also don't seem to be tons of SaaS paradigms at scale that differentiate companies other than entrenchment. It's somewhat realistic to assume that a handful of companies are going to pop up that connect simple applications to SaaS backends, which lowers even more the amount of income you can generate from a SaaS and would open up the level of competition to folks who can vibe code.

> Building a Saas product seems somewhat trivial at this point.

The trap here is the word "seems". When I started building my SaaS years back I thought the problem space was trivial (even joked to my business partner that I could spin the whole thing up in a weekend).

But almost 5 years on it's anything but trivial. The issue isn't with the core features, the core features in our app have been running for years without issue. What is very much non-trivial are all those subtle tiny features around the main feature that enhance the experience.

My customers don't pay me for the primary feature, that they could reproduce in a weekend. They pay me for all the tiny sub-features that came out of all those minor things that I mentioned in my first comment.

Those tiny details are the reason that it's both very easy to say things like "SaaS is trivial" and why the entrenched players are still at the top.