5 ms·

And those companies will do what? Produce products in uber-saturated markets? Or magically 9900 more products or markets will be created, all of them successfu

And those companies will do what? Produce products in uber-saturated markets? Or magically 9900 more products or markets will be created, all of them successful?

rkomorn 7mo ago
I don't understand the people who think more companies with fewer employees is a good thing. I already feel spammed to death by desperate requests for my consumption as is.
- graybeardhacker 7mo ago
  Because: 1. One person companies are better at giving the wealth to the worker. 2. With thousands of companies the products can be more targeted and each product can serve fewer people and still be profitable Then companies won't need to spam you to convince you that you need something you don't. Or that their product will help you in ways it can't. Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life.
  - rkomorn 7mo ago
    > Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life. Because these one person companies will scale up everything with AI except marketing/advertising? Consider me skeptical.
  - toldnotmywrath 7mo ago
    > One person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team to inject ads into every corner of your life. But they could have a thousand-agent swarm connected via MCP to everything within our field of vision to bury us with ads. It's been a long time since I read "The Third Wave" and up until 2026, not much has reminded me about its "Small is beautiful", and "rise of the prosumer" themes besides the content creator economy which is arguably the worst thing to ever happen to humanity's information environment, and LLM agent discussions.
    - rkomorn 7mo ago
      > the content creator economy This is exactly one of the things I find maddening at the moment. "Everyone" (except my actual friends) on social media is trying to sell me something. Eg: I like dogs. It's becoming increasingly hard to follow dog accounts without someone trying to sell me their sponsor's stuff.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
aurareturn 7mo ago
Go back to a time at the start of Youtube. Now answer these questions: And what will those people who make videos on Youtube do? Produce videos in uber-saturated categories? Or magically 9900 more media channels will be created, all of them successful?
- aurareturn 7mo ago
  To follow this up, one of my favorite channels on Youtube is Outdoor Boys. It's just a father who made videos once a week doing outdoor things like camping with his family. He has amassed billions of views on his channel. Literally a one-man operation. He does all the filming, editing himself. No marketing. His channel got so popular that he had to quit to protect his family from fame. Many large production companies in the 2000s would have been extremely happy with that many views. They would have laughed you out of the building if you told them a single person could ever produce compelling enough video content and get at many viewers.
  - snarf21 7mo ago
    Serious question: but aren't there thousands of other guys doing almost the same thing and getting almost no views? Even if there are lots of new channels, there aren't going to be lots of winners
    - aurareturn 7mo ago
      But there are many Youtubers making a decent living doing it as a one person shop or a small team. In the past, you needed to a large team with a large budget and buy in from TV/DVDs/VHS to get an audience.
      - Wilder7977 7mo ago
        https://alanspicer.com/what-percentage-of-youtubers-make-money/ https://alanspicer.com/what-percentage-of-youtubers-make-mon... Claims 0.25% of channels makes any money at all. The amount that make a decent living is realistically even smaller, possibly < 0.1%. To me the YouTube example seems to be the exact demonstration that markets saturate and market distribution is still a winner-takes-all kind of deal.
csa 7mo ago
> And those companies will do what? Produce products in uber-saturated markets? > Or magically 9900 more products or markets will be created, all of them successful? Yes. Products will become more tailored/bespoke rather than a lot of the one size fits all approach that is pervasive now.
- chrystalkey 7mo ago
  No? I dont see any indication that this would be a good idea. Or even looked for.
  - csa 7mo ago
    > No? I dont see any indication that this would be a good idea. Or even looked for. Do you spec software for a variety of businesses? I do. It’s rare that one SaaS or software package does what the people paying want it to do. Either they have to customize internally (expensive and limited to larger orgs with a tech department) or Frankenstein a solution like Salesforce or WordPress with a lot of add ons. And even then, it’s not hitting all pain points. Being able to spin up or modify an app cheaply and easily will be a massive boon for businesses.
- Wilder7977 7mo ago
  And if it's so cheap and bespoke, why buying it and not making it in house? What about access to people with know-how of that product? You use a product that only 4 other companies use, you can be sure you won't find any new hire that knows how to use it. To me it seems the reality works in the opposite way. Among the many products built, some will be successful and will swallow the whole market, like now with basically any software or SaaS product.
  - csa 7mo ago
    > And if it's so cheap and bespoke, why buying it and not making it in house? 0. Sure, some products will be made in house. That said, being able to spec a product well is a skill that is not as common as some folks seem to think. It also assumes that an org is large enough to have a good internal dev team, which is both rare and relatively expensive. 1. It sloughs responsibility, which many folks want to do. 2. It allows for creation to be done not by committee and/or with less impact from internal politics. 3. It facilitates JIT product/tool development while minimizing costs. That’s off the top of my head. The realities of business often point to internal development not being ideal.

And those companies will do what? Produce products in uber-saturated markets? Or magically 9900 more products or markets will be created, all of them successful?

rkomorn 7mo ago

I don't understand the people who think more companies with fewer employees is a good thing. I already feel spammed to death by desperate requests for my consumption as is.

graybeardhacker 7mo ago
Because: 1. One person companies are better at giving the wealth to the worker. 2. With thousands of companies the products can be more targeted and each product can serve fewer people and still be profitable Then companies won't need to spam you to convince you that you need something you don't. Or that their product will help you in ways it can't. Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life.
- rkomorn 7mo ago
  > Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life. Because these one person companies will scale up everything with AI except marketing/advertising? Consider me skeptical.
- toldnotmywrath 7mo ago
  > One person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team to inject ads into every corner of your life. But they could have a thousand-agent swarm connected via MCP to everything within our field of vision to bury us with ads. It's been a long time since I read "The Third Wave" and up until 2026, not much has reminded me about its "Small is beautiful", and "rise of the prosumer" themes besides the content creator economy which is arguably the worst thing to ever happen to humanity's information environment, and LLM agent discussions.
  - rkomorn 7mo ago
    > the content creator economy This is exactly one of the things I find maddening at the moment. "Everyone" (except my actual friends) on social media is trying to sell me something. Eg: I like dogs. It's becoming increasingly hard to follow dog accounts without someone trying to sell me their sponsor's stuff.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

aurareturn 7mo ago

Go back to a time at the start of Youtube. Now answer these questions: And what will those people who make videos on Youtube do? Produce videos in uber-saturated categories? Or magically 9900 more media channels will be created, all of them successful?

aurareturn 7mo ago
To follow this up, one of my favorite channels on Youtube is Outdoor Boys. It's just a father who made videos once a week doing outdoor things like camping with his family. He has amassed billions of views on his channel. Literally a one-man operation. He does all the filming, editing himself. No marketing. His channel got so popular that he had to quit to protect his family from fame. Many large production companies in the 2000s would have been extremely happy with that many views. They would have laughed you out of the building if you told them a single person could ever produce compelling enough video content and get at many viewers.
- snarf21 7mo ago
  Serious question: but aren't there thousands of other guys doing almost the same thing and getting almost no views? Even if there are lots of new channels, there aren't going to be lots of winners
  - aurareturn 7mo ago
    But there are many Youtubers making a decent living doing it as a one person shop or a small team. In the past, you needed to a large team with a large budget and buy in from TV/DVDs/VHS to get an audience.
    - Wilder7977 7mo ago
      https://alanspicer.com/what-percentage-of-youtubers-make-money/ https://alanspicer.com/what-percentage-of-youtubers-make-mon... Claims 0.25% of channels makes any money at all. The amount that make a decent living is realistically even smaller, possibly < 0.1%. To me the YouTube example seems to be the exact demonstration that markets saturate and market distribution is still a winner-takes-all kind of deal.

csa 7mo ago

> And those companies will do what? Produce products in uber-saturated markets? > Or magically 9900 more products or markets will be created, all of them successful? Yes. Products will become more tailored/bespoke rather than a lot of the one size fits all approach that is pervasive now.

chrystalkey 7mo ago
No? I dont see any indication that this would be a good idea. Or even looked for.
- csa 7mo ago
  > No? I dont see any indication that this would be a good idea. Or even looked for. Do you spec software for a variety of businesses? I do. It’s rare that one SaaS or software package does what the people paying want it to do. Either they have to customize internally (expensive and limited to larger orgs with a tech department) or Frankenstein a solution like Salesforce or WordPress with a lot of add ons. And even then, it’s not hitting all pain points. Being able to spin up or modify an app cheaply and easily will be a massive boon for businesses.
Wilder7977 7mo ago
And if it's so cheap and bespoke, why buying it and not making it in house? What about access to people with know-how of that product? You use a product that only 4 other companies use, you can be sure you won't find any new hire that knows how to use it. To me it seems the reality works in the opposite way. Among the many products built, some will be successful and will swallow the whole market, like now with basically any software or SaaS product.
- csa 7mo ago
  > And if it's so cheap and bespoke, why buying it and not making it in house? 0. Sure, some products will be made in house. That said, being able to spec a product well is a skill that is not as common as some folks seem to think. It also assumes that an org is large enough to have a good internal dev team, which is both rare and relatively expensive. 1. It sloughs responsibility, which many folks want to do. 2. It allows for creation to be done not by committee and/or with less impact from internal politics. 3. It facilitates JIT product/tool development while minimizing costs. That’s off the top of my head. The realities of business often point to internal development not being ideal.