Live data from Hacker News

"Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

iamcharliegraham.substack.com

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#71
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in that boat, everything is just a crud app. I've worked on some fairly complex apps but at their core they were crud apps and most of their complexity were caused by bad developers overcomplicating and fumbling things. That's not to say something like Figma isn't on an entirely different level, but most apps aren't Figma and don't need to be. Most apps are simple crud apps and if they aren't it's usually because…

> Most apps are simple crud apps and if they aren't it's usually because the devs are bad. I heard this a lot from candidates who had only worked on software that could be described as an app. They bounced from company to company adjusting a mobile app here, fitting into a React framework there, and changing some REST endpoints. There is a large world of software out there and not all of it is user-facing apps.

>I heard this a lot from candidates who had only worked on software that could be described as an app.

Similar to that thinking, I made a previous comment how many developers in the "L.O.B. Line-Of-Business / CRUD" group are not familiar with "algorithms engineering" type of programming: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078147

Vibe coding is easiest for CRUD apps. However, it's useless for developing new scientific/engineering code for new system architectures that require combining algorithms & data structures in novel ways that Claude Code has no examples for.

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#73
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's something that I'd call a "complexity cliff" in the software business: if you want to compete in certain spaces, you need to build very complex software (even if the software, to the user, is easy to use) I recognized something similar when I first started interviewing candidates. I try to interview promising resumes even if they don't have the perfect experience match. Something that becomes obvious when d…

I'm in that boat, everything is just a crud app. I've worked on some fairly complex apps but at their core they were crud apps and most of their complexity were caused by bad developers overcomplicating and fumbling things. That's not to say something like Figma isn't on an entirely different level, but most apps aren't Figma and don't need to be. Most apps are simple crud apps and if they aren't it's usually because…

> I'm in that boat, everything is just a crud app. I've worked on some fairly complex apps but at their core they were crud apps and most of their complexity were caused by bad developers overcomplicating and fumbling things.

Far too much of my recent work has been CRUD apps, several with wildly and needlessly overengineered plumbing.

But not all apps are CRUD. Simulations, games, and document editors where the sensible file format isn't a database, are also codebases I've worked on.

I think several of those codebases would also be vulnerable to vibe coding*; but this is where I'd focus my attention, as this kind of innovation seems to be the comparative advantage of humans over AI, and also is the space of innovative functions that can be patented.

* but not all; I'm currently converting an old C++ game to vanilla JS and the web, and I have to carefully vet everything the AI does because it tends to make un-performant choices.

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#74
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in that boat, everything is just a crud app. I've worked on some fairly complex apps but at their core they were crud apps and most of their complexity were caused by bad developers overcomplicating and fumbling things. That's not to say something like Figma isn't on an entirely different level, but most apps aren't Figma and don't need to be. Most apps are simple crud apps and if they aren't it's usually because…

What makes Figma more complex?

Check out their old blog post on how they got real-time collaborative editing without conflicts to work: https://www.figma.com/blog/how-figmas-multiplayer-technology...

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#75
I guess the argument they make for why "Be Different" doesnt work any more is because people can use AI to copy it.

I actually think AI just makes products converge onto whatever the AI averages out to.

It would be interesting to see this explored further. It seems like being different might actually have an even more pronounced effect now (for good or bad).

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#76

Can't say I agree with this article at all. This has not been my experience. I don't quite know how to articulate this well, but there's something that I'd call a "complexity cliff" in the software business: if you want to compete in certain spaces, you need to build very complex software (even if the software, to the user, is easy to use). And while AI tools can assist you in the construction of this software, it ca…

> there's something that I'd call a "complexity cliff" in the software business: if you want to compete in certain spaces, you need to build very complex software (even if the software, to the user, is easy to use) I recognized something similar when I first started interviewing candidates. I try to interview promising resumes even if they don't have the perfect experience match. Something that becomes obvious when d…

> I try to interview promising resumes even if they don't have the perfect experience match. Something that becomes obvious when doing this is that many developers have only operated on relatively simple projects. They would repeat things like "Everything is just a CRUD app" or not understand that going from Python or JavaScript to C++ for embedded systems was more complicated than learning different syntax for your if blocks and for loops.

I agree and disagree here. IMO the sign of experience is when you understand which details really matter, and which details are more or less the same across the different stacks, and also when they don't know enough yet to differentiate and need to ask someone else.

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#77

Can't say I agree with this article at all. This has not been my experience. I don't quite know how to articulate this well, but there's something that I'd call a "complexity cliff" in the software business: if you want to compete in certain spaces, you need to build very complex software (even if the software, to the user, is easy to use). And while AI tools can assist you in the construction of this software, it ca…

I don't agree with the article either.

My view is that every company has its own DNA and that the web presence has to put this DNA in code. By DNA, I mean USP or niche. This USP or niche is tantamount to a trade secret but there doesn't even have to be innovation. Maybe there is just an excellent supplier arrangement going on behind the scenes, however, for projects, I look for more than that. I want an innovation that, because I understand the problem space and the code platform, I can see and implement.

A beginner level version of this, a simple job application form. On the backend I put the details from the browser session into form data. Therefore, HR could quickly filter out those applying for a local job that lived in a foreign country. They found this to be really useful. Furthermore, since some of our products were for the Apple ecosystem, I could get the applicant's OS in the form too, plus how long they agonised over filling in the form. These signals were also helpful.

To implement this I could use lame Stack Overflow solutions. Anyone scraping the site or even applying had no means of finding out if this was going on. Note the 'innovation' was not in any formal specification, that was just me 'being different'. In theory, my clumsy code to reverse lookup the IP address could have broken the backend form, and, had it done so, I would have paid a price for going off-piste and adding in my own non-Easter Egg.

I would not say the above example was encoding company DNA, but you get the idea. How would this stack up compared to today's AI driven recruitment tools?

As a candidate I would prefer my solution. As the employer, I too would prefer my solution, but I am biased. AI might know everything and be awesome at everything, however, sometimes human problems require human solutions and humans working with other humans to get something done.

Would I vibe code the form? Definitely no! My form would use simple form elements and labels with no classes, div wrappers or other nonsense, to leverage CSS grid layout and CSS variables to make it look good on all devices. It took me a while to learn to do forms this way, with a fraction of the markup in a fraction of the time.

I had to 'be different' to master this and disregard everything that had ever been written on Stack Overflow regarding forms, page layout and user experience.

AI does not have the capability to do super-neat forms like mine because it can't think for itself, just cherry-pick Stack Overflow solutions.

I liken what you describe with running out of Stack Overflow solutions to hill walking ('hiking'). You start at the base of the trail with vast quantities of others that have just stepped out of the parking lot, ice cream cones in hand. Then you go a mile in and the crowd has thinned. Another mile on and the crowd has definitely thinned, big time. Then you are on the final approach to the summit and you haven't seen anyone for seemingly hours. Finally, at the summit, you might meet one or two others.

Stack Overflow and blog posts are like this, at some stage you have to put it away and only use the existing code base as a guide. Then, at another level, you find specifications, scientific papers and the like to guide you to the 'summit'. AI isn't going to help you in this territory and you know you haven't got hundreds of competitors able to rip off your innovation in an instant.

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#78
post #60
post #26

> The result is a Cambrian explosion of software launches. This software... Is it in the room with us right now?

Would actually be interesting to see if there is some product hunt or Launch HN stats that prove/disprove this

There was an article that made it the front page of HN a few weeks ago that showed that there hasn’t been an explosion of new software.

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#79

Can't say I agree with this article at all. This has not been my experience. I don't quite know how to articulate this well, but there's something that I'd call a "complexity cliff" in the software business: if you want to compete in certain spaces, you need to build very complex software (even if the software, to the user, is easy to use). And while AI tools can assist you in the construction of this software, it ca…

It actually sounds like you agree with the article quite a bit.

If your product doesn't solve problems on the difficult side of the "complexity cliff" then vibe coders will copy it and drive your profit to zero.

Re: "Be Different" doesn't work for building products anymore

#80

This article is based on vibes just like the trends it hypothesizes. To pick just one claim: “Big companies used to move slowly, but now a ragtag team of two developers at a large firm can whip up something that looks top-of-market to the untrained eye in a matter of weeks.” This is just pure speculation with no consideration of success or longevity. Big companies are going faster now? Where? Which ones? AI coding al…

>This is just pure speculation with no consideration of success or longevity. Big companies are going faster now? Where? Which ones?

Yes but there is a more fundamental problem. The claim doesnt even make sense:

>“Big companies used to move slowly, but now a ragtag team of two developers at a large firm can whip up something that looks top-of-market to the untrained eye in a matter of weeks.”

That was never the problem. I mean really, what is the implication of this? That big companies moved slowly because the developers were slow? What? No one thinks that, including the author (I imagine).

Its from many layers of decision-making, risk aversion, bureaucracy, coordination across many teams, technical debt, internal politics, etc.

This manifests as developers (and others) feeling slowed down by the weight of the company. Developes (and others) being relatively fast is precisely how we know the company is slow. So adding AI to the development workflow isn't going to speed anything up. There are too many other limiting factors.

Post reply on HN