I wonder if this is a sign of bad value. Long ago you'd be willing to pay. The relationship was clearer , simpler, stabler. No sudden change of price or rules, no constant false improvement. It was less flexible, and riskier on a way, but it cleaned the noise.

My 2cts

> The reality is it's insanely hard to convince people (/especially/ consumers. //especially// technical consumers) to pay up to use software.

The industry is in an extremely bimodal situation, which drives most of that rot.

You have the startups and small businesses who can't get businesses or customers to pay up. And you have the SaaS giants, who already have their customers and can charge whatever they want.

And this is where the "rotten software industry" and doubts about AI feasibility intersect: Both of these business archetypes lack a clear use case for AI.

If you're small, congratulations you can now spend thousands a month on tokens and still have $0 of revenue. AI doesn't really help you "catch up" to customer expectations as now you're also having to compete with the myriad of slop-shops and in-house AI software development.

If you're a giant, well... why bother? Why give OpenAI or Anthropic a million dollars in tokens? They don't need to make the software better nor do need any "AI efficiency" to do layoffs.

> Anyone who has tried to sell software as a startup knows, customers are laser focused on outcomes and value

So the solution is to reduce the cost to zero, instead of competing to provide the best outcome and highest value?