Incumbents can use Cursor, too
Not every new technology shift favors startups.
One notion you hear a lot right now is the idea that AI will drive the costs of software production to zero, implying that AI-first new entrants will flood into every important software sector and nuke every incumbent.
Just ask the folks at Y Combinator, who believe every SaaS company will face competition from a newer agentic AI version of the same product. Or public market investors who, aside from some outliers like Palantir and Cloudflare, are assigning values to public software companies at 10-year low revenue multiples. Despite the NASDAQ reclaiming all-time highs, public cloud software remains a very out-of-favor category as investors perceive their prospects and defensibility to be not-so-good:
The logic of incumbent displacement analogizes AI to prior platform shifts such as the transition to cloud. When software began to move from on-prem to the cloud, you couldn’t exactly “port” an existing product into a SaaS instance, or bolt a “cloud” upsell module onto your current platform — you more or less had to rewrite the software from scratch.
Incumbents had some huge disadvantages in this state of play:
Their R&D teams were filled with individuals who didn’t have experience in cloud.
They had Innovator’s Dilemma type effects — legacy customers were paying them large maintenance fees to continue supporting on-prem products, making it very hard to discontinue older platforms in favor of cloud. This meant that incumbents were burdened with the cost of maintaining two completely different platforms (on-prem and cloud) into the foreseeable future, if they were to attempt a foray into SaaS.
Standardization of web development frameworks & cloud infrastructure products like AWS made it much cheaper to build a net new SaaS product with a small team and some seed funding. Also, armies of 22-30 year old developers without distractions like babies and mortgages had a native understanding of these tools that their older peers in the bigger companies did not.
These dynamics favored Rebels over the Empire and created conditions whereby it was much more efficient to start a brand new cloud company than to transition an older business to SaaS. We haven’t even talked about the financial upside angle yet — there’s a reason why a thirty-something Marc Benioff set out to build Salesforce by himself instead of doing it from within Oracle.
In general, “disruptive” technology platform shifts like on-prem to cloud or mainframe to PC have similar dynamics of the young/new outcompeting and displacing the old. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were 21 and 26 years old, respectively, when they founded Apple. Bill Gates and Paul Allen were 19 and 22. Incumbents at the time like IBM and Digital Equipment Corporation did not produce these technologies in-house.
But it’s important to note that not all new technologies are disruptive platform shifts. Sometimes better tooling is just better tooling. Everybody gets to use it, and everybody benefits, without the field being tilted heavily in favor of new entrants building new platforms for a new era.
Just to pick a random example, think of the rise of modern integrated developer environments (IDEs) like Microsoft’s Visual Studio (launched in 1997). This is a technology that significantly improved the efficiency of building software. But it did not create any sort of “well now we have to throw everything out and build new stuff from scratch” dynamic. And furthermore it didn’t disfavor incumbents; practically every big company in the world in ‘97 already had an account with Microsoft and could adopt the technology quite rapidly.
So how “disruptive” is AI? Let’s go through a few angles to answer this.
Do you need an entirely new company architecture to take advantage of it? The answer is “yes” if you are a foundation model company like OpenAI, but “no” for pretty much anyone else, at least as far as we know now. Any cloud software company can summon AI into their product simply by using an API call. You don’t need to “build an entire company from the ground up to support AI” to satisfy the AI demands of customers (whereas you do need a cloud product to sell over the cloud).
Does the new technology favor ambitious 23 year old technologists over experienced 45 year olds? Interestingly, we are starting to find out that AI coding assistant tools are most useful in the hands of experienced developers who best know how to debug the mistakes they invariably make. In the hands of a junior dev they mostly produce useless slop. There’s a reason why the job market for new grads in tech is getting dire.
Does AI turn legacy incumbents’ sprawling codebases into a competitive disadvantage for them? For the moment, AI cannot autonomously build big projects with lots of dependencies, and high requirements for security and compliance. It’s just not good enough yet. So it feels like all the years of work that incumbents put into making their products enterprise-ready will continue to be a competitive moat for them.
Is there an Innovator’s Dilemma issue where legacy companies can’t sell AI products without cannibalizing sales of non-AI products? Seemingly not at all. Incumbent SaaS providers are rapidly building AI modules and distributing them directly into their install base. If anything the opposite seems to be happening: Incumbents are finding that their customers don’t want to pay more for an “AI product”, they just want AI to augment the value proposition of the product they’re already paying for.
Do new AI-native entrants have a distribution advantage over incumbents? In some cases yes, driven by the virality of truly novel products (see ChatGPT, Cursor, Replit, etc). But on the other hand, every scaled incumbent SaaS company is completely NRR-obsessed and has a gigantic customer success function that is tasked with putting new products in the hands of existing customers. TBD on this one.
Some of these dynamics will probably change over the next few years. I’m not here to argue against scaling laws.
But for now we know this: AI significantly lowers the cost of building new software, particularly when it’s in the hands of strong, experienced software developers who know how to use it. And who has the most experienced top decile software developers at their disposal — a random startup, or Microsoft?