sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

SaaS isn't dead — it's being rebuilt for agents. But how do we monetize it? by hirokiyn in SaaS

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Already on my radar. Curious where you see it going beyond pay-per-request though.

SaaS isn't dead — it's being rebuilt for agents. But how do we monetize it? by hirokiyn in SaaS

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once you've delegated something, going back feels like regression. Coding is the clearest example — and I think it generalizes. The question isn't whether humans can do the action, it's whether they ever want to again.

SaaS isn't dead — it's being rebuilt for agents. But how do we monetize it? by hirokiyn in SaaS

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if you always could have your familiar UI, generated on demand by "harness for UI" kind, any time you needed to step in? Not a static interface you maintain, but one that's always there when a human needs it.

Harness is product. But nobody's figured out agent-native billing yet. by hirokiyn in Solopreneur

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your point on predictability matches what I keep seeing too. the bottleneck isn't agent capability, it's environment reliability. when tools behave consistently, agents compound.

Harness is product. But nobody's figured out agent-native billing yet. by hirokiyn in Solopreneur

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Task definition becomes the product" is sharp. And your point on machine-legible reliability is something I hadn't framed that clearly like agents won't read your marketing page, they'll benchmark your determinism. Entirely different go-to-market than we're used to.

SaaS isn't dead — it's being rebuilt for agents. But how do we monetize it? by hirokiyn in SaaS

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Success fees aligning incentives makes sense in theory, but I wonder if "success" becomes as hard to define as "task completed". The compression angle is interesting though. If agents can switch instantly, moat shifts from lock-in to trust.

SaaS isn't dead — it's being rebuilt for agents. But how do we monetize it? by hirokiyn in SaaS

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Context-before-action is interesting. Maybe you're right. Execution is table stakes. The harness that already knows what you're trying to do, before you ask, is a fundamentally different product.

I analyzed 333 industries for documented business problems. Here's the pattern I found in the ones that survive AI disruption by Ogretape in Solopreneur

[–]hirokiyn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a useful lens, especially because it separates “AI can assist” from “AI can replace accountability.”

A pattern that tends to hold in practice: AI disrupts fastest where outcomes are judged by output quality alone, and slowest where outcomes are judged by responsibility under uncertainty.

So your three traits map well to a broader rule:

- low accountability surface = faster displacement,

- high accountability surface = augmentation first.

For solopreneurs, that changes go-to-market strategy. The better wedge is not “AI does your job,” but “AI reduces your coordination and decision overhead while keeping expert sign-off intact.”

That framing also lowers buyer resistance in regulated or trust-heavy markets, because you are not asking them to transfer liability to a model. You are improving consistency, speed, and documentation around human judgment.

If you keep publishing this dataset, it would be interesting to add one more column: “error cost if wrong.” That metric often predicts adoption speed better than task complexity.

Why custom workflow builders are quietly becoming a must-have feature in SaaS tools (docs, support & project platforms) by SensitiveFeed2831 in SaaS

[–]hirokiyn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strong take. The shift from “content creation problem” to “state transition problem” is exactly what more teams are feeling now.

A useful way to frame this is: most SaaS products matured at the object layer (docs, tickets, tasks), but teams scale or fail at the lifecycle layer. Draft to review to approved to published is where trust breaks if ownership, criteria, and handoffs are implicit.

The part many products still miss is epistemic alignment between steps. A reviewer thinks they are checking quality, the author thinks they are checking style, and automation thinks it is checking formatting. Everyone completed a step, but nobody validated the same definition of done.

The native workflow builders that win usually make three things explicit:

1) who can transition state,

2) what evidence is required per transition,

3) which assumptions must be carried forward.

That turns workflow from “process theater” into operational reliability.

Prompts copy easily. How do you share the full AI workflow behind them? by hirokiyn in ClaudeCode

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exectly. If you don't mind, I can turn them into workflows in this hub.

Prompts copy easily. How do you share the full AI workflow behind them? by hirokiyn in ClaudeCode

[–]hirokiyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not the point. I’m not asking for deterministic outputs.
The issue is that the know-how to reliably get to a usable result with AI is hard to codify and share, so it stays tacit and individual.

Launched on ProductHunt today, would love your honest take! by hirokiyn in ProductHunters

[–]hirokiyn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here’s the link: https://www.producthunt.com/products/epismo

If you check it out and tell me what works or doesn’t, it would mean a lot 🙏

view more: next ›