alt Hacker NewsThis hits close to home. I've been building tools for bookkeepers and accountants as a side project, and the calculus you're describing - where a subscription becomes a weekend obligation - is exactly why I've tried to keep things genuinely useful rather than sticky.
The cynical approach would be to make the product hard to leave. But that just means you've built a trap, not something people actually want. Eventually they escape and hate you for it.
The test I use: would people recommend this to colleagues even if there's no referral incentive? If the answer is no, I'm probably building something people tolerate rather than something they value.
Replies
I doubt LLM-generated software is going to replace more traditional software any time soon, especially when accuracy is pretty important (such as accounting). One thing I learned from years as a PM in a very data-centric organization is understanding data, how it is generated/stored/cut/etc. is very important to getting accurate results.
Where I could see some really interesting results is the marriage of the two. For example, you have a solid data structure that an LLM can generate infinite custom views from.
You can pivot your knowledge into building bespoke tools for the same people, just a LOT faster.
The recommendation thing is a nice benchmark, but if you're building hyper-specific tools - why would people recommend them to anyone? If you build a tool for an accountant that does some very niche thing only they're bothered by, why would they recommend to the analyst or receptionist in the company?