 |
|
|
|||||
Hello again, and thank you, as always, for spending time with Fast Companys Plugged In. In a remarkably influential 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Netscape and Andreessen Horowitz cofounder Marc Andreessen declared that software was eating the world. From entertainment to commerce to transportation, he argued, startups that were about code at their core were disrupting many of the worlds most deeply entrenched businesses. That was just the beginning, he warned: Companies in every industry need to assume that a software revolution is coming. Fifteen years later, we know that some of the disruptors Andreessen citedsuch as Zynga, Groupon, and Skype (RIP)did not, in fact, eat the world. His larger point, however, played out much as he predicted. Software really does run everything these days. And many of its purveyors are among the most successful companies in the world. Recently, however, Wall Street has been spooked by the possibility of another sea change in the making: AI might be on the verge of eating software. The sudden leap forward in the capability of software-writing LLM tools such as Anthropics Claude Code has investors worried that the corporate behemoths presently making tidy profits by selling subscription-based softwareparticularly for enterprise customersmight find themselves unable to compete with apps coded by AI for very little cost. This theoretical collapse of the software industry is known as The SaaSpocalypse, a name I hate but cant quite avoid acknowledging. (I promise not to bring it up again.) Its reflected in the stock performance of such seemingly robust companies as Workday (down 35% year to date), Adobe (-26%), Salesforce (-25%), Autodesk (-21%), and Figma (-19%). On February 23, after Anthropic published a blog post touting Claudes ability to modernize software written in the 66-year-old COBOL programming language, IBMCOBOLs kingpin for most of that timesaw its biggest one-day stock drop in more than a quarter century. Investors are right to expect that AI will radically change software as a business in the coming years. The evidence is already here, in the form of developments such as Blockthe parent company of Squareannouncing on February 26 that its terminating 40% of its 10,000 employees. Explaining the brutal reduction, CEO Jack Dorsey contended that AI will allow a smaller team to accomplish more and do it faster, and said he was getting ahead of an inexorable industry-wide trend. What happens next remains to be seen, but Block will surely never be the same. Still, Wall Streets apparent belief that AI spells bad news for todays software titans is premature, and possibly just misguided, period. Its certainly heavy on vibes rather than hard data: Mondays dip in the S&P 500 apparently stemmed in part from a dystopian imaginary June 2028 memo published by Citrini Research. Laying out a sweeping nightmare involving AI crushing the U.S. economy, it name-checked specific companies such as DoorDash and Zendesk as being incapable of competing with AI-infused apps and agents. Well, maybe, though even the documents authors admitted they were certain some of these scenarios wont materialize. In a little over two years, it will be possible to assess what Citrini got wrong and right. For now, it remains equally possible to imagine futures in which 2026s software-based kingpins arent mowed down by AI, even if the technologys coding chops will continue to improve indefinitely rather than hitting a wall. For one thing, the software business isnt solely about writing software. It requires selling itsometimes in the form of hefty annual contractsand supporting it when things go wrong. It will be difficult for AI (or even most AI-savvy startups) to take on these tasks outside of the human-powered infrastructure that major software companies have built, often over decades. In Sun Microsystems cofounder Scott McNealys memorable phrase, enterprise customers like having one throat to chokesomeone with the bottom-line responsibility of making them happy. They wouldnt get that by vibe-coding their own in-house replacements for major apps, or buying them from a tiny company offering look-alike equivalents. Instead, they have a powerful incentive to keep doing business with companies that have already shown an ability to deliver. People who use AI to write their own apps might even develop a newfound appreciation for all the ways software suppliers make their lives easier. For instance, last April I wrote about the note-taking app Id vibe-coded for my own use, and said Id put it together in a week. What I didnt know at the time was that Id spend the next 11 months fiddling around with new features, squashing bugs, and stressing over the fact that Inot Apple, Google, or Notionbear responsibility for the apps security and data integrity. Id do it all over again, but because its been great, mind-expanding fun, not because its saved me money or time. Its far too early to conclude that existing software giants wont use AI to grow even more dominant. After all, they have considerable resources to throw at that challenge, and deep knowledge of the industries they serve. AI could be a potent accelerant to their growth, or just a way to slash costs by reducing human headcount. But theres little evidence its on the cusp of figuring out how to build and market products humans will find compelling without plenty of guidance. Even as the technology puts pressure on software companiessay, by introducing enough competition that its tougher to endlessly raise pricesthey might be intrepid enough to find a new path forward. IBM, for example, isnt short on AI savvy of its own; if the company cant find a way to make money from customers wanting to modernize COBOL-based platforms, its IBMs own fault, not Anthropics. Yes, history is full of sobering case studies of once-mighty software companies that gotoverwhelmed by technological change. In the 1990s, for example, the PCs shift from the text-based DOS to the graphical interface of Windows was ruinous to big names such as Lotus, WordPerfect, and Ashton-Tate, none of which bet big enough on Windows early enough. Their miscalculation was unquestionably Microsoft Offices gain. But it doesnt always pan out that way. In the following decade, Office faced a similar threat as productivity migrated to internet-based tools. When Google launched products such as Docs and Sheets, stuffed them with innovative features, and offered them for free, observers thought that might be terrible news for Microsoft. Not so: The company reacted skillfully enough that Microsoft 365, as it calls Office in its current form, is bigger than ever, to the tune of $95 billion in revenue last year. In Silicon Valley, it has become fashionable to tell workers that the only way to remain relevant is to embrace AI rather than fear it. As Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang puts it, Youre not going to lose your job to an AI, but youre going to lose your job to someone who uses AI. The same principle applies to todays software companies. Theyre not going to be killed by AIonly by other companies that are better at seizing the opportunities it offers than they are. Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on fastcompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard. More top tech stories from Fast Company If technology could bring traffic fatalities down to nearly zero, why not embrace it?What the elevator can teach us about self-driving cars. Read More Anthropic’s autonomous weapons stance could prove out of step with modern warThe Pentagon is demanding that the AI company remove the safety guardrails from its AI models to allow all lawful uses. Read More Is Apple about to debut a new iPhone camera feature?What is ‘variable aperture’ and why you should care. Read More AI can write now. What happens to reporters?If bots can reliably draft copy, ‘something big’ might be happening to the job of a journalist. Read More Apple killed Dark Sky. Now its creators are trying again with a new weather appAcme Weather brings back the team behind the cult-favorite forecast app, with new features designed to show uncertainty. Read More 15 incredibly useful things you didn’t know NotebookLM could doFrom managing meetings to maintaining your car, Google’s Gemini-powered research tool can provide all sorts of eye-opening revelations. Read More
Category:
E-Commerce
Last nights surprise announcement from Netflix that it was abandoning its Warner Bros. takeover bid in the wake of a “superior” offer from Paramount Skydance has sent shockwaves through both Hollywood and Wall Street. And investors in all three companies have reacted strongly. Heres what you need to know. Whats happened? Yesterday, Warner Bros. Discovery said it has determined that a revised bid for its cinema and television properties from Paramount Skydance was a superior proposal to Netflix’s long-standing offer of $82.7 billion. Paramount, which has been in a hostile bidding war with Netflix over the movie studio, issued a new proposal to Warner Bros. on Tuesday. That revised proposal saw Paramount offer roughly $111 billion for all of Warner Bros. Discoverys assets. To put those numbers on a per-share basis, it meant that while Netflix was offering roughly $27.75 per share, Paramount was offering $31. Yet those numbers arent exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Thats because Netflix was looking to acquire only Warner Bros. Discoverys movie and streaming divisions, including the Warner Bros. film studio and HBO Max streaming service. Paramounts offer, by contrast, wants all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including its television properties, which consist of CNN, Discovery Channel, Turner Classic Movies, and many more. Executives at Warner Bros. Discovery had made it no secret that they were more amenable to a takeover by Netflix instead of David Ellisons Paramount Skydance, but in the end, Hollywood is a business, and money speaks louder than personal preferences. And that money made Warner Bros. Discovery deem Paramounts offer a “Company Superior Proposal” as defined by its current Netflix merger agreement. As a result, Netflix was obligated to come back with a counteroffer within four days. Netflix says WB is not worth the higher price But in a move that surprised many in Hollywood and on Wall Street, Netflix didnt need four days. Within hours of Warner Bros. Discovery designating Paramounts offer superior, Netflix announced that it was bowing out of the acquisition battle. In a statement announcing the surprising withdrawal, Netlfixs co-CEOs, Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, said that the company was disciplined and that after Paramount Skydances new offer, a Netflix-Warner Bros. deal is no longer financially attractive. The CEOs added: this transaction was always a nice to have at the right price, not a must have at any price. For its part, Warner Bros. Discovery issued a statement from CEO David Zaslav, saying, “Netflix is a great company and throughout this process Ted, Greg, Spence and everyone there have been extraordinary partners to us.” “We wish them well in the future,” Zaslav added. “Once our Board votes to adopt the Paramount merger agreement, it will create tremendous value for our shareholders.” NFLX, PSKY, and WBD stock prices swing While Hollywood will be dealing with the surprise withdrawal of Netflixs offer for some time to come, investors reactered immedialyimpacting the stock prices of all three companies involved in the dramatic announcement. Despite Netflix walking away from its deal (and thus abandoning the possibility of owning the lucrative film and streaming rights to such properties, including Batman, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones) shares of Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) are currently up significantly in premarket trading. As of this writing, the stock is up nearly 7.4% to $90.85. This stock price rise might seem antithetical at first, considering the IP that Netflix is walking away from, but it highlights how Netflix investors in general have been apprehensive of the proposed Netflix-Warner Bros. merger since it was announced in December. At the time of the announcement, Netflix shares were trading at around the $103 mark. As of yesterdays market close, which was before Netflix announced it was pulling out of the deal, NFLX shares have declined nearly 19% since the merger announcement. Investors in Paramount Skydance Corp (Nasdaq: PSKY) also seem satisfied by the news, with PSKY shares are up 7.25% over yesterdays closing price of $11.18 to $11.99. So why are Paramount investors happy? It largely comes down to the fact that Paramount needs Warner Bros. more than Netflix did. Netflix is the dominant streamer across the globe, while Paramount is a relatively smaller player compared to Netflix, Disney, and Warner Bros. (via the latters HBO Max). If Paramount is to stay competitive in the future, it needs to build up its IP portfolio so that it can continue to attract paying subscribers. By acquiring Warner Bros Discovery, it can do just that. And then we get to shares of Warner Bros. Discovery (Nasdaq: WBD). Yesterday, the stock closed at $28.80. Currently in premarket trading, they have fallen about 2% to $28.22. While Paramounts offer is locked in at $31 per share, todays fall is probably a sign from investors that they are a bit disappointed that there was not a counteroffer from Netflix, which could have made their shares even more valuable. A Paramount Skydance deal is still far from certain The fact that WBD shares are down likely also reflects some ongoing uncertainty in investors minds. While Paramount Skydance is now the only bidder for Warner Bros. Discovery, and Warner Bros seems happy with the proposal, it doesnt mean the two companies will certainly merge. A combined Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery raises a lot of antitrust and consolidation concerns for both Hollywood and linear and cable television. Given that Paramount Skydance is interested in acquiring WBD’s film and television properties, the merger will likely face even higher scrutiny than a Netflix-Warner Bros. merger would have. Some believe that due to the Ellisons friendly relationship with President Trump, a Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros Discovery merger may have smoother-than-expected sailing. However, ultimately, it will be up to the Justice Department to approve the merger in the United States. Even if the merger is approved in the United States, that doesnt mean other regulators from around the world will approve it, and that uncertainty will be weighing on investors minds for some time.
Category:
E-Commerce
If you don’t want to be left behind by the AI revolution, you really need to start paying for it. At least thats become the common refrain among some AI enthusiasts, who seem intent on instilling FOMO in less technical users. The free versions of ChatGPT and Claude, they say, are woefully inadequate if you want to understand where things are headedso stop being a cheapskate and hand over your $20 (or $200) a month like the rest of us. “Judging AI based on free-tier ChatGPT is like evaluating the state of smartphones by using a flip phone,” HyperWrite CEO Matt Shumer recently wrote in a widely shared essay on AI’s impact. “The people paying for the best tools, and actually using them daily for real work, know what’s coming.” I’m giving you permission to safely ignore this advice, and to not feel bad about it. While an AI subscription might make sense if you’re running into specific frustrations with the free versions, you can still get plenty of mileage without paying, and learn a lot about the state of AI in the process. Don’t be frightened into buying something that hasn’t actually proven its value to you. The state of the art is still free One way that AI boosters try to scare you into paying for AI is by arguing that the free versions are already obsolete, so any negative impressions you might’ve gotten from them are misguided. “Part of the problem is that most people are using the free version of AI tools,” Shumer wrote in his essay. “The free version is over a year behind what paying users have access to.” This claim is provably false: The free version of ChatGPT includes access to GPT-5.2, OpenAI’s latest model, which launched in December. The free version of Google Gemini includes access to Gemini Pro 3.1, which launched on February 19. Claude’s free version doesn’t include Opus 4.6, but has the same Sonnet 4.6 model that the paid version uses by default. It launched on February 17. Microsoft 365 subscribers can also select “Smart Plus” in Copilot to use GPT-5.2, without a premium AI subscription. xAI’s Grok 4 is available for free. Of course, the free versions of these tools all have usage limits, but so do the paid ones. When I signed up for a month of Claude Pro to test Opus 4.6, I quickly ran into yet another paywall. To continue the conversation, I had to either buy pay-as-you-go credits or upgrade to the $200-a-month Claude Max plan. Without paying more, I couldnt use Claude at allnot even Sonnet 4.5until my limit reset. My main takeaway was that I should have just stuck with Sonnet in the first place. Instead of paying for some vague feeling that you’re getting the state of the art, you should play around with what AI companies offer for free. Make them demonstrate that the results are meaningfully different before you consider paying them, not after. AI should prove itself to you, not vice versa For AI boosters, the corollary to paying for AI is that you also need to throw immense amount of time into figuring out what it’s for. Ethan Mollick, for instance, writes that you should “resign yourself to paying the $20 (the free versions are demos, not tools),” then spend the next hour testing it on various real-world tasks. Sorry, but this is backward from how software as a service should work. It’s not your job to invest time and money into convincing yourself that AI is worth more time and money. Let the AI companies do the convincing, and don’t fall prey to FOMO in the meantime. Playing the field is just as instructive If you do commit to paying for an AI tool, chances are you won’t use other AI tools as much, or at all. But that in itself isn’t a great way to understand the state of AI. What you should be doing instead is bouncing around, taking full advantage of what each AI company offers for free. That way, you’ll get a sense not just of the subtle differences between large language models, but also the unique features that each AI tool offers. You’ll also be less likely to run into usage limits, the only trade-off being that your past conversations will be scattered across a few different services. Such behavior is, of course, wildly unprofitable for all the companies involved. But again, that’s not your problem. If you’re getting sufficient value out of free AI tools, the AI companies will have to tweak their free offerings accordingly (for instance, with ads) or come up with new features worth paying for. Claude Code, for instance, is available only with a subscription, and over time we may see more paywalled tools (like Claude Cowork, which is still in early development) that cater to specific tasks or verticals. Until that happens, enjoy the free versions of AI tools, and rest easy knowing that you’re not missing much.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||