I don't believe the "software factory pattern" can even be established as a pattern. I wonder if it's considered normal these days to call a Silicon Valley management style a "pattern."

Fundamentally, a pattern is a reusable solution to a recurring problem. But what the author is describing here is simply an operational loop and a management strategy.

I think current agent methodologies are practically indistinguishable from human developer management theories. Isn't this just a feedback process? I would consider this an agentic workflow.

Also, people casually use the metaphor of a "factory" when churning things out, but a factory fundamentally operates on "orders"—it has a specific objective and a target production volume. The entire approach of just trying to dynamically respond to everything under this label feels somewhat contrived.

Furthermore, I always have this underlying question: why are we building software factories in the first place? Where are we manufacturing the people who will actually buy all this?

I've heard stories of people finding success by running "app factories" in the early 2010s when apps were scarce. But in the agent era, I believe we are already drowning in AI slop. We have to remember that back then, producer friction was high, and simply submitting an app was a difficult hurdle.

Now, AI handles most of the basics by default. Things that were once highly praised are now just the baseline. To create something actually worth selling today, you have to break the existing grammar entirely, build much more complex architectures, and offer deeper features. Given this new standard, I seriously question whether mass production is the right answer.

> Furthermore, I always have this underlying question: why are we building software factories in the first place? Where are we manufacturing the people who will actually buy all this?

You say this but then

> Now, AI handles most of the basics by default. Things that were once highly praised are now just the baseline. To create something actually worth selling today, you have to break the existing grammar entirely, build much more complex architectures, and offer deeper features. Given this new standard, I seriously question whether mass production is the right answer.

To do something much more complicated, you need to rework the fundamental ways of working which is exactly what the author is proposing. I think you are already sold that this is the base line (but it doesn't seem like it based on your post).