Apps as we have known them, charted on an exponential are effectively done as an outsized opportunity. The insane arbitrage that existed due to the complexity of creating apps will be gone in short order. Quite disconcerting having spent so much time in this space, but it is what it is. 🤷 That being said, in the near term in my opinion is that there is no better time in the history of apps to make apps than right now, especially if you have been making apps for a while and understand what it takes to make a great product, but maybe just haven't had the bandwidth and time to make it happen before. The bar for quality that apps will have to be to breakthrough, even in many cases just get accepted on the appstores, will be very very high, because it is trivial to make a decent app now, but it is also increasingly possible to make Duolingo/Strava quality apps even as a single individual if you know what you are doing. But that window will close rapidly, so even after making 60+ apps over the years, I think the next 6 - 12 months are all about focus and making a few apps larger than life, mastering network effects, paid advertising and ruthlessly improving every aspect of the app recursively just like large teams at these bigger apps have done.

BREAKING NEWS : Famous wallpaper app developer not impressed with flying car

Investor in cloud AI companies says local models are useless. Who could have guessed 🤷‍♂️

After almost the entire year with codex as my main driver, I resubscribed to claude max again because I literally cannot use codex anymore after just a day of work. These limits are ridiculous, has the rug pull begun?

This might end up being a fatal mistake for OpenAIs growth, once people are forced to find alternatives that we realise actually perform just as good for most tasks, especially when the production APIs get nerfed anyways to accommodate for scale

You can tell the devastation AI is causing in the 'indie-hacking' community when it has now turned from attempting to make something useful to literally just begging for money. "bUy Ad SpAcE oN mY BalLsAcK" GTFOuta here with that nonsense, do you have no shame?

Tell me you haven’t met a parent without telling me you haven’t met a parent. Them mfs busy as hell.

This, Grok Bot looks cool but I wonder if you are essentially paying $200/mo to be training data that will eventually get sherlocked

I’ll just leave this here

At some point, by consistently driving home this point that you make money but prefer to drive a Corolla, you are inadvertently and ironically flexing in the same way someone driving a Mercedes would be 🤣

I’ve heard this and believed this, every year, for over a decade. Somehow apps never died.

OpenAI are on an unbelievable war path. Scorched earth for real.

Bro after posting this

SideShift superseded agencies that charged nonsense $10k retainers. And now someone will supersede SideShift with their nonsense $299 base. Competition is a beautiful thing.

Hate to be that guy but I’m pretty sure you guys are a clone of PrayScreen yourself 😅 Put yourself in that collage too my brother in Christ. Shout out @lottsnomad

The problem with this concept is that with many UGC campaigns and I’m sure many others can attest this, they are not a panacea for acquisition a lot of times. It takes a lot more creators/accounts and a lot more posts before you see any kind of success beyond the upper percentile campaigns, especially with self serve platforms like SideShift. I would hazard a guess that they maybe had high median churn, and they probably realised the most retentive users were the ones who pretty much didn’t care to lose that money for an extended period of time before they then found content and creator market fit. So of course naturally people worried about $299 are not their target market but I don’t know if that says anything about the efficacy of their platform but rather the appetite for cost that the client has to have. A bigger client might maybe wait up to five months before they decide to kill a UGC approach but small clients after a month of no success might decide to cancel even though they probably need to have waited longer in order to see that success. And I think they’re probably occupying the space of things like television advertising which encompass a part of the wider marketing strategy where pure ROI might not be a high priority for a lot of these clients and it’s just something that they put in there to cast a wide net and because UGC is now a buzz word in organisations

Bro after posting this

The only thing worse than negative criticism is fair criticism

While this may be true, I do think we are now in a different agentic world where outcome dependent pricing will be the new standard, as opposed to just high base pricing. It’s kinda been the one of the core ideas behind the ‘SaaS-pocalypse’ Even when I extend the analogy to B2B pricing for AI Frontier models it’s mostly API pricing which effectively starts at 0 and scales with usage. Just because others do it and have done it in the past, doesn’t make it the pathway for the future imo. To me this is legacy pricing that will soon get eroded down if enough competent people start deciding to take a bite at your lunch. If I were you I would do the same tbh, but I’m selfishly talking from the perspective of the other side. But I do think there is a world in which you could charge “less” and effectively make more. Like one suggestion I had where you create a minimum wallet deposit to start campaigns/jobs. But what do I know, I’m just yapping 🤷‍♂️