Author: Mustufa Khan

Translation: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher

Apple Inc. is dead; it just hasn't submitted the formal paperwork yet.

This is not a groundbreaking perspective but a structural interpretation of what has transpired over the past six months and the confirmation of the same by Naval Ravikant last week on his podcast. The most patient investor in the tech field, and one of the shrewdest capital allocators of the past 20 years, just remarked that the pure software industry is not worth investing in.

If you are a founder reading this, the issue is not whether you believe it; it's whether you have 18 months to reposition, so that the market doesn't notice.

Background: Naval is the founder of AngelList and an early investor in Twitter, Uber, Notion, and about 200 other companies that have shaped the tech landscape over the past decade. He rarely posts. But when he does, he chooses his words carefully as if he knows that what he says will be quoted by future generations. So when he unequivocally states, “pure software is not worth investing in,” it is not a comment but a declarative judgment.

Here is what he said and what it means for everyone building products.

No one can stop Apple's structural death

Apple will not go bankrupt. Apple's products will not disappear from your pockets next year. The collapse described by Naval is not operational but economic.

Apple's valuation of up to $3 trillion is entirely built on one point: an excellent software experience supports the profits of its high-end hardware. Once this experience is lost, Apple becomes a better-built Samsung. And that is what is happening now.

The interface layer is being commoditized in real-time. Within 24 months, most people will no longer open applications as they do now, but will directly converse with smart customer service. Customer service will generate the desired interface on-demand based on user needs. Apple's carefully curated app store, human-computer interface guidelines, intricate designs, and ecosystem lock-in—all will become irrelevant as interfaces are generated in real-time by AI running on any phone.

What is Apple's response to this transformation? They licensed Gemini from Google. Their own investment in AI has yet to meet expectations. This company, which once focused on controlling user experience, is now outsourcing that experience to its biggest competitor.

This is a rapid advancement of Microsoft's post-mobile era strategy.

Microsoft missed the mobile market because they refused to build a native touchscreen OS from scratch. Their dominance in the previous era made them believe that the old model would still work. By the time they accepted the new model, Apple had already won the next decade. Microsoft is still worth watching. $3 trillion today, Microsoft Windows lost the consumer war they could have won.

Apple is now making the same mistake in AI. They are betting that their “hardware-first” positioning will help them smoothly transition to intelligent agents. But this will not work. Once the operating system becomes commoditized, Apple’s margins will be compressed to the same level as ordinary hardware. This will lead to a structural revenue collapse in its most profitable business segment—which also supports all other businesses.

You can continue to hold Apple shares. Just don’t expect that you are holding shares in a growth company.

The historically most valuable hardware company is about to discover how much its hardware is worth without a software moat.

If your moat is software, you have 18 months left

If you are a founder, the next part is the more difficult one.

Naval says pure software is not worth investing in. He is not wrong. But he did not explain what this means for the thousands of SaaS companies currently sitting on Series A and B funding valuations, which are funded in a different world.

This means that most of them are already dead; they just don’t know it yet.

The reasoning is simple. Your SaaS company's existence is predicated on how difficult it is to develop your product. The reason you have been able to raise funds is that implementing the technology requires a team. Whether you openly admit it or not, your moat lies in how difficult it is to replicate the product you have created.

That problem is now solved.

A team of two using Claude Code can now replicate 80% of the functionalities of most B2B SaaS products within 90 days. This is not a toy version, but a fully operational version with a robust architecture, basic security, and scalability. The remaining 20% — your specific integrations, enterprise sales processes, and compliance systems—are the real problems that need to be solved. But this is not a moat; it’s friction. And with the release of new generations of agents each quarter, these frictions will gradually decrease.

Look at what has happened. Adobe acquired Figma for $20 billion in 2022. The architecture of Figma's product was difficult to build, leading to its elimination. Today, design tools that offer functionalities equivalent to 70% of Figma's core features can be delivered by independent developers in just a few months. Salesforce is the most valuable SaaS company in history. AI-native CRM systems that did not exist 18 months ago are now starting to encroach into its mid-market. Workday, ServiceNow, Atlassian, Asana—each of them could be replaced by AI-native CRM systems, which have smaller development teams than their HR departments.

The companies that can survive this transformation will not be those that have the best software. Software will ultimately fade away. The companies that will survive will be those that create things AI cannot replicate:

Distribution channels. Network effects. Data flywheels. Hardware integration. Brand. Community. Regulatory depth. These are the only lasting defenses in the new world.

If your honest answer to “What is our moat?” is “Our product is better,” then you have 18 months to find a real moat; otherwise, you will watch your valuation shrink by 70-90% in the next funding round.

The founders who can survive this transformation will be those who read articles like this and take the current situation seriously. And those who dismiss it as hype will likely find themselves posting layoffs on LinkedIn by 2027, puzzled as to why it all happened so quickly.

Which one are you?

The companies that win in the next decade are not developing software

If pure software is dead, then what is worth investing in? Naval explicitly pointed out in the podcast: hardware, AI models, and network-effect businesses. Let me elaborate on what practical actions founders can take this quarter.

Distribution becomes the new moat.

Today, successful companies are not the ones that have the best products, but the ones that establish the most direct connections with customers. The product is merely the vehicle for serving customers. Your audience is your moat. Your email list is your moat. Your community is your moat. Your reputation is your moat.

If you as a founder still think of “marketing” as a phase to be done after the product is finished, then you have already failed. Today, marketing is the product itself. The product is the result of attracting attention.

Network effects compounded.

In the wave of AI commoditization, the businesses that can survive will derive their value not from the functionalities themselves but from other users. Discord, Roblox, LinkedIn, Reddit, these companies are hard to replicate not because their software is so complex, but because their user bases are deeply locked in by other users.

If your product can significantly improve with an increase in user numbers, then it can survive for the long term. If your product is the same whether the user count is 100 or 100,000, then you're done for. AI can replicate functionalities, but it cannot replicate user bases.

Data flywheels.

Companies that can train superior models, collect proprietary data through user interactions, and build feedback loops that competitors cannot replicate will survive in the long term. For example, Tesla's autonomous driving data, Bloomberg terminal data, etc. Data itself has a cumulative effect, whereas using ordinary data in software does not have this effect.

If your product can generate unique data from each user interaction, it is very valuable. If your product is just a user interface based on public APIs, then it has little value.

Hardware integration.

Companies that have physical assets are protected the longest. For example, Tesla, Anduril, SpaceX, Apple's chip business (not Apple's app business), Boston Dynamics. Hardware manufacturing is incredibly difficult. AI does not produce chips, batteries, or rockets. The physical world remains the most enduring moat in the entire economic system.

Vertical depth.

The weaknesses of horizontal SaaS giants are fully exposed. In contrast, vertical domain experts who understand specific industry workflows, data, and relationship networks remain strong. Generic project management tools have disappeared, but dedicated platforms in the construction industry with licensing processes, inspector networks, and regulatory data remain strong. Delving deeply into one industry far surpasses dabbling in ten industries.

If you are currently rebuilding your strategy, the question is: what moats can you build for your business in the next 12 months? Not some day in the future but right now. Because founders who strategically adjust first can capture the market share of survivors when others fail.

The other side of the collapse is the largest opportunity in history

Most entrepreneurs reading articles about the death of software often overlook this point. They focus solely on what is dying while ignoring the new possibilities that are emerging.

Naval's most optimistic view in the podcast is that software is entering a renaissance for individual creators, rather than the death of software; it is the democratization of software.

Historical patterns have existed already. Notch released Minecraft by himself. Markus Frind runs Plenty of Fish. Instagram's original team had only 13 members, generating $10 million in annual profit, and was later acquired by Facebook. WhatsApp had 55 employees when it was acquired for $1 billion. An exit of $19 billion. These companies represent an uncompromising vision of one person that ultimately turns into a product without the dilution of vision seen in team collaborations.

Each instance is exceptional. They should not have scaled to such sizes.

What changes now are the limits. In the past, a solo founder might be able to produce interesting products but would face significant barriers when scaling. The team must expand, and compromise follows, leading to a dilution of vision. The original uniqueness of the product is also smoothed out by various forces, just like all products operated by committees.

Naval's vision is to create a company run by just one person that achieves the efficiency of a 50-person team. Users submit bug reports through in-app buttons. Customer service reviews reports every 24 hours. Customer service writes fixes, submits pull requests, and runs tests. The founder reviews, approves, and releases. Customer support is handled by a person capable of coding to fix fundamental issues. Feature requests are voted on by users, customer service handles development, and the founder maintains quality.

No coordination, no political struggles, no diluted vision from compromises, no objections from engineers about the special circumstances the founder values, no disputes over icon placements by designers, and no product managers diluting bold releases for conservatism.

The founder's vision is realized completely from their mind to the final product.

This is not just theoretical; it is quietly occurring in certain areas. Pieter Levels, as a solo operator, has built multiple businesses with annual revenues in the seven figures. An increasing number of independent hackers are managing businesses that would have required Series A funding three years ago. The movement of independent operators in the AI-native space is creating outcomes the venture capital industry has yet to anticipate.

The next billion-dollar company may have only one employee. The next unicorn may have fewer than ten employees.

If you are a creator, operator, marketer, or founder who has been waiting for the license to build, the license has arrived. The technical bottlenecks no longer exist, and start-up funding has been exhausted. Now, the only barrier between you and a real business is whether you have the content you wish to express, a keen insight into great work, and the discipline to put that work into practice.

This is either the worst time in history to develop general software or the best time in history to develop cutting-edge products.

Both are true. Which situation applies to you entirely depends on your actions in the next 18 months.

The 18-month window is now open

You now have three options.

Option one: treat all of this as hype. Convince yourself that Apple is too big to fail; your SaaS company is unique; AI coding agents are overhyped; and everything will pass. You are not alone. Most founders will choose this path. And most founders will ultimately fail.

Option two: panic. Cut funding suddenly, fire the team, and rush to pivot. This is the consequence of awakening too late. Those founders destroyed by this pivot were not the ones who anticipated the transformation but those who awoke 12 months too late, having to reposition under pressure, with no financial reserves, no time to test, and no chips to play.

Option three: take the 18-month window seriously. Honestly assess your moat. Build distribution channels before you need them. Find advantages that AI cannot replicate. Prepare for the world that is coming, not for one you wish to remain unchanged.

Naval carefully chose his words. “Investing in pure software is not worth it. That's it.” This is not a vague statement but rather the words of someone who has spent twenty years discerning which projects are worth investing in and has now concluded that most funded projects are not.

Apple is already failing. Most SaaS founders will follow suit. And those who ultimately survive will be those who heed these words and take action before others realize it.

The opportunity window is open now, but it will not remain open forever.

The question is, will you spend the next 18 months building a moat that can endure, or will you watch helplessly as your existing moat is gradually eroded away?

Most people will not be able to do it; some will. The difference lies in your performance this quarter.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。