This is just a bet that the models will get better and that all the half baked never seen production Lovable apps will be able to be brought life because of that. I am fading that bet personally and am bearish on non technical people building software

▲

himata4113 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To put it more accurately: people who don't do software use loveable to build apps for people who do not use software.

▲

chao- an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I... am bearish on non technical people building software.

I can't bring myself to be bullish or bearish in such broad strokes.

Over the years, I have met and worked with a number of people who were "non-technical", but who nonetheless built their own internal rough software tools with a cobbled-together combination of spreadsheets and SaaS services, connected by something like Zapier. They are a particular kind of person, but I would not call all of them them "technical". They are experienced in their business domain, are detail-oriented, and are persistent in making improvements by any means they could.

I have seen those people be supercharged by AI app builders like Replit and Lovable, even if I don't personally have a need for either.

This might be a matter of definitions: Is such a person "technical" because they value systematizing human processes and put effort into it? Or is such a person "non-technical" because they are not experienced in software engineering best practices, or programming in the conventional sense?

In addition to the nature of the user, I suspect the fulcrum that success and failure rests on for these kinds of apps and tools is long-term maintenance. How frequent? How involved? How breaking are the changes? On this topic, there is a quote I think about a lot (paraphrased, and I forget who said it, or I would credit them):

>AI app builders mean that anyone can experience the joy of building software, but also that they will experience the joy of maintaining software.

▲

edgyquant an hour ago | parent [-]

I have seen and worked with a number of “non technical” people ship apps and automations over the last year that are making real money so it’s past the point where you can be bearish. Sure these people are probably just a class in themselves and not “the average person” but they never would have done this if they had to write code by hand

	▲	asdev an hour ago \| parent [-]
		show me an example and what do you mean by real money?

▲

echelon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a sign that distribution matters.

Doesn't matter how many Lovable clones there are. Everyone knows the name Lovable.

This caters to the overwhelming majority who cannot use tools like Claude Code or that prefer an all in one solution.

Open source models only help Lovable improve its own margins. They can stop paying the Anthropic or OpenAI tax and tailor the models to exactly their use case and UX.

▲

tikhonj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's a sign of how much distribution matters to VCs. Whether that is enough in the medium- and long-term is unclear. I'm a bit skeptical but not very confident either way... which is part of the reason I am not a VC!

	▲	shimman 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think it's time we start questioning more of the valley's mindset when it comes to good business and software practices. From lived experience it typically results in unhealthy work environments at best and society destroying at worse. Is this really the best way to write software? I'd but my life's savings no, it's not. No way in hell.

▲

asdev an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Depends what you mean by distribution, they are spending an arm and a leg on paid acquisition

▲

dominotw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Everyone knows the name Lovable.

not really. maybe last year.

▲

ZeroCool2u 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't disagree about distribution, but absolutely no one I know outside the tech bubble knows what Lovable is or has even heard of it.