Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#2Enterprise userscripts? Very neat, though I wonder if typical enterprise security policies would allow for this.
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#3I hope there's some forced migration of the SaaS business model towards primarily being "just an API" for whatever magic sauce it is they have. Too much of SaaS moats are just locking the backend behind an undocumented API.
Users should be able to have full control over their experience interacting with third parties if they want it. This isn't unique to post-LLM stacks like this, but it seems like this shifts the balance of power.
The next step after injecting custom UI controls is to build completely alternative frontends. The next step after that should be to build generic local frontends that abstract over multiple comparable thirdparty providers.
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#4Nice post and I agree that making software with really simple UX for last mile cases is the solution to the SaaS-pocalypse and is something new that was not possible before AI.
I'm solving this from the other side of the equation: we work directly with the SaaS vendors to make vibe coding embedded into their platform. Working with some Series B companies right now, 2000 business users are now able to build any feature they want, within the guardrails of the SaaS vendor. (More info in profile if anyone wants to chat)
Exciting times!
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#5I hope there's some forced migration of the SaaS business model towards primarily being "just an API" for whatever magic sauce it is they have. Too much of SaaS moats are just locking the backend behind an undocumented API. Users should be able to have full control over their experience interacting with third parties if they want it. This isn't unique to post-LLM stacks like this, but it seems like this shifts the ba…
Nice vision, "alternative frontends" is something really useful for horizontal SaaS. We do this for over 2000 customers, from field workers to CEOs of public companies, and it's so satisfying to hear the great feedback when they tell me that they finally have software perfectly adapted to their workflows.
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#6Enterprise userscripts? Very neat, though I wonder if typical enterprise security policies would allow for this.
One way to solve it is to partner with the enterprise directly and work within their guardrails
Shameless plug: my company does it, live with Series B companies.
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#7Although I absolutely understand the frustration expressed by the author, I find the notion that SaaS companies are somehow 'evil' because they optimize for the 80/20 rule a bit arrogant. Anyone working in SaaS - or really in any business- understands that you need to prioritize. In the end, your obligation as a company, regardless of your product, is to generate profits. And that's absolutely OK.
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#8I hope there's some forced migration of the SaaS business model towards primarily being "just an API" for whatever magic sauce it is they have. Too much of SaaS moats are just locking the backend behind an undocumented API. Users should be able to have full control over their experience interacting with third parties if they want it. This isn't unique to post-LLM stacks like this, but it seems like this shifts the ba…
I think the right step would be to somehow communicate to the vendor that this feature is needed (eliminating the PM backlog BS) and their coding Agents should pick it and build it. The real moat they have is SaaS vendors have everyone believe that trivial feature requests take time to implement.
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#9Although I absolutely understand the frustration expressed by the author, I find the notion that SaaS companies are somehow 'evil' because they optimize for the 80/20 rule a bit arrogant. Anyone working in SaaS - or really in any business- understands that you need to prioritize. In the end, your obligation as a company, regardless of your product, is to generate profits. And that's absolutely OK.
> In the end, your obligation as a company, regardless of your product, is to generate profits.
No denying that. SaaS started with a user problem at the center of it and as they scaled, forgot about an individual user. This only presents the user frustration and a possible solution to it.
Re: Forcing an inversion of control on the SaaS stack
#10I hope there's some forced migration of the SaaS business model towards primarily being "just an API" for whatever magic sauce it is they have. Too much of SaaS moats are just locking the backend behind an undocumented API. Users should be able to have full control over their experience interacting with third parties if they want it. This isn't unique to post-LLM stacks like this, but it seems like this shifts the ba…
I think the right step would be to somehow communicate to the vendor that this feature is needed (eliminating the PM backlog BS) and their coding Agents should pick it and build it. The real moat they have is SaaS vendors have everyone believe that trivial feature requests take time to implement.
That introduces a level of indirection between "what I want" and what gets built. A workflow like the OP just has less friction. SaaS platforms would want to provide more stable accessible APIs if it becomes a popular model, because users would find it more usable.