upvote
One of my first professional coding jobs was in 2007 when Facebook first introduced 'Facebook Apps'. I worked for a startup making a facebook app, and EVERY SINGLE app company had the same monetization strategy: Selling ads for other facebook apps.

So the lifecycle of an app would be:

1) Create your game/quiz/whatever app.

2) Pay a successful app $x per install, and get a bunch of app installs.

3) Put all sorts of scammy "get extra in game perks if you refer your friends" to try to become viral.

4) Hope to become big enough that people start finding you without having to pay for ads.

5) Sell ads to other facebook app startups to generate installs for them.

It was a completely circular economy. There was not product or income source other than the next layer of the pyramid.

It didn't last long.

reply
Hate to break it to you, but it’s still going on, just outside the fb app api.
reply
The recent YC -> Circle -> Coinbase -> YC comes to mind
reply
Aren't most ads in scummy mobile games ads for other scummy mobile games, to this very day?
reply
Yes, but those apps also have scummy microtransactions, so at least there is SOME outside revenue entering the system.
reply
That is the problem with software developers with expertise in software, but no deep domain knowledge outside the CS world.
reply
It is my belief with some exceptions it is almost always easier to teach a domain expert to code than it is to teach a software developer the domain.
reply
For problems that can be solved with only a small amount of simple code that is true. However software can become very complex and the larger/more complex the problem is the more important software developers are. It quickly becomes easier to teach software developers enough of your domain than to teach domain experts software.

In a complex project the hard parts about software are harder than the hard parts about the domain.

I've seen the type of code electrical engineers write (at least as hard a domain as software). They can write code, but it isn't good.

reply
That's true both ways though: if a theoretical physicist wants to display a model for a new theorem, it'd be probably easier for them to learn some python or js than for a software engineer to understand the theorems.
reply
If this is the case is discoverable, for at least one direction. Reproducability is known to be a problem in some of the sciences, for various reasons. Find a paper that includes its data and software/methodology used for analysis, and try to get it running and producing the same results. Evaluate the included software/methodology on whatever software quality standards you feel are necessary or appropriate.
reply
Not all kinds of programming are the same.

Web dev is low entry barrier and most web devs don’t need a very deep knowledge base.

Embedded, low level language, using optimizations of the OS / hardware require MUCH more specialized knowledge. Most of the 4 year undergraduate program for Computer Science self selects for mathematics inclined students who then learn how to read and learn advanced mathematics / programming concepts.

There’s nothing that is a hard limit to prevent domain expert autodidacts from picking up programming, but the deeper the programming knowledge, the more the distribution curves of programmers / non-programmers will be able to succeed.

Non programmers are more likely to be flexible to find less programming-specific methods to solve the overall problem, which I very much welcome. But I think LLM-based app development mostly just democratizes the entry into programming.

reply
Every single time I try to get a domain expert at $job to let me learn more about the domain it goes goes nowhere.

My belief is that engineers should be the prime candidates to be learning the domain, because it can positively influence product development. There’s too many layers between engineers and the the domain IME

reply
I mostly agree, but I see programmers more as “language interpreters”. They can speak the computer’s language fluently and know enough about the domain to be able to explain it in some abstractions.

The beauty of LLMs is that they can quickly gather and distill the knowledge on both sides of that relationship.

reply
In practice, does that happen? Usually companies try to bring the best of both and build from there.
reply
I wouldn’t argue how things historically worked, but rather where the LLM innovations suggest the trajectory will go.
reply
This is interesting. Do you know of any examples of successful tech companies built by non-technical founders?
reply
I think a more appropriate question would be:

"Are there more or less examples of successful companies in a given domain that leverage software to increase productivity than software companies which find success in said domain?"

reply
It is my experience that most of these business domain experts snore the moment you talk about anything related to the difficulties of creating software.
reply
Yeah, I think the issue has more to do with the curiosity level of the participant rather than whether they are a business domain expert or a software engineering expert.

There’s a requisite curiosity necessary to cross the discomfort boundary into how the sausage is made.

reply
Until a few months ago, domain experts who ciuldn't code would "make do" with some sort of Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet From Hell (MESFH), an unholy beast that would usually start small and then always grow up to become a shadow ERP (at best) or even the actual ERP (at worst).

The best part, of course, is that this mostly works, most of the time, for most busineses.

Now, the same domain experts -who still cannot code- will do the exact same thing, but AI will make the spreadsheet more stable (actual data modelling), more resilient (backup infra), more powerful (connect from/to anything), more ergonomic (actual views/UI), and generally more easy to iterate upon (constructive yet adversarial approach to conflicting change requests).

reply
> AI will make the spreadsheet more stable

Hallucinations sure make spreadsheets nice and stable.

reply
That doesn't track at all IME.

Programming is not something you can teach to people who are not interested in it in the first place. This is why campaigns like "Learn to code" are doomed to fail.

Whereas (good) programmers strive to understand the domain of whatever problem they're solving. They're comfortable with the unknown, and know how to ask the right questions and gather requirements. They might not become domain experts, but can certainly learn enough to write software within that domain.

Generative "AI" tools can now certainly help domain experts turn their requirements into software without learning how to program, but the tech is not there yet to make them entirely self-sufficient.

So we'll continue to need both roles collaborating as they always have for quite a while still.

reply
I want to make a business, but what is the business
reply
It's way easier to raise for dev tools than domain tools right now.
reply
Pretty much. I’m working on a few things with several people and I’m now constrained by their ability to find stuff to build.
reply
I’ve been a year deep into my first job out of tech. There is a never ending slew of problems where being able to code, specially now with AI, means you have wizard-like powers to help your coworkers.

My codebase is full of one-offs that slowly but surely converge towards cohesive/well-defined/reusable capabilities based on ‘real’ needs.

I’m now starting to pitch consulting to a niche to see what sticks. If the dynamic from the office holds (as I help them, capabilities compound) then I’ll eventually find something to call ‘a product’.

reply
That made me remember that one time many years ago, when I had a friend who literally called me a wizard.. He was working as a shift manager at a call center, and one of his most difficult tasks he kept ranting about was scheduling employees, who were not the most consistent bunch, and had varied skillset, yet he had to meet very strict support availability requirements.

He kept ranting about what a b*tch of a problem that was, every time we went out drinking, and one day, something got into me, and thought there must be some software that can help with this.

Surely there was, and I set up a server with an online web UI where every employee could put in when they were able to work, and the software figured out how to assign timeslots to cover requirements.

I thought it was a nice exercise for me in learning to admininster a linux server, but when I showed it to my friend, he looked me in the eye and told me I a saved him a day of work every week, and called me a wizard :D

It occured to me, how naturally part of the programming profession is to make things in fixed amounts of time, that turn difficult and time consuming tasks a human needed to do into something that essentially just happens on its own.

reply
Can I ask what do you do now?
reply
Talk to people.

There are an infinite amount of problems to solve.

Deciding whether they’re worth solving is the hard part.

reply
Maybe have it build some toy apps just for fun! My wife and I were talking once about typing speed and challenged each other to a typing competition. the existing ones I found weren't very good and were riddled with ads, so I had Claude build one for us to use.

Or maybe ask yourself what do you like to do outside of work? maybe build an app or claude skill to help with that.

If you like to cook, maybe try building a recipe manager for yourself. I set up a repo to store all of my recipes in cooklang (similar to markdown), and set up claude skills to find/create/evaluate new recipes.

Building the toy apps might help you come up with ideas for larger things too.

reply
I’m really enjoying these LLMs for making ad-hoc tooling / apps for myself. Things that I only need for a day or a week, that don’t need to work perfectly (I can work around bugs).

It’s really liberating. Instead of saying “gosh I wish there was an app that…” I just make the app and use it and move on.

reply
Nailed it!

This is not even AI - it's pre-AI, and everyone has continued to try to create things that other people can use as a dependency, just on a much higher pace.

I've found writing simulations that my childhood brain would have LOVED to see run fun and fulfilling.

reply
I find myself building fun tools for myself and things that help with quality of life slightly, but I don’t need all this extra enterprise stuff for that. I actually find myself more likely to use something I built because I am proud of it, even if there is already something on the market that addresses my need.
reply
When there’s a gold rush, sell shovels.
reply
I’m on the other hand, I have a million ideas and AI has allowed me to implement so many of them.
reply
build us a way out
reply
Steve Jobs used to say every product needs a killer feature

AI is a product in search of a killer feature

First AGI was anyday going to come. Gpt5 had showed intelligence apparently

Then got started adult chat with paying customers

reply
Speak for yourself. I’ve been using Claude Code to build lots of customer facing things.
reply
If infirmation arbitrage is the game then it's now a race to distribution channels and trust.

Also what does society need? Smart workers and people who believe in the system... so where does that leave us? We need to make something that would better enable children to want to grow up in the world and participate. Otherwise were doing nothing of value and in a death spiral

reply
building is the easy bit, more than ever.

selling it is the hard part, nothing new there

reply
Someone on HN pointed out how all the LLM companies are basically going “we made this thing, can y'all please find the billion dollar application for it?” and that really made a lot of things - namely why I’m frequently raising an eyebrow at these tools and the vague promises/demand that we use them - click into place.

Don’t get me wrong, I have found uses for various AI tools. But nothing consistent and daily yet, aside from AI audio repair tools and that’s not really the same thing.

reply
Ask an LLM for suggestions on what to build
reply
Sell the shovels!!
reply
Side note, been watching gold prospecting channels lately, there will be these dig sites/claims people go to, they'll do their thing, dig a hole, run it through some angled ramp water contraption... they get like nothing, it's the experience I suppose. But I was wondering what the owner gets from all these people showing up.

They'll work for hours and end up with $4 of gold

reply
Another option is to bring your coding skills to a industry not particularly known for using tech.
reply
There are companies making a lot of money directly from software largely written by LLMs especially since Claude Code was released, but they aren't mentioning LLMs or AI in any marketing, client communications, or public releases. I'm at least very aware that we need to be able to retire before LLMs swamp or obsolete our niche, and don't want to invite competition.

Outside of tech companies, I think this is extremely common.

reply
This type of software is mainly created to gain brand recognition, influence, or valuation, not to solve problems for humans. Its value is indirect and speculative.

These are the pets.com of the current bubble, and we'll be flooded by them before the damn thing finally pops.

reply