| Author here. I think about it this way - some tools are more like programming languages, and some are like can openers. Programming languages have a high skill ceiling and a big variation in performance - a great programmer is 10x more effective than a mediocre programmer. In contrast, can openers have a low skill ceiling and low variation in performance. iPhone apps I'd argue were more like a programming language. The App Store was more of a platform everyone had to be on to play, rather than the core technology that drove every app's value prop. The best app developers still had a big advantage over the median app developer - their products were more performant, easier to use. e.g. Candy Crush was 5x more fun and addictive than the next match-3 game. The question I ask is, can a great GPT-3 developer have a 10x advantage over the median GPT-3 developer? Or does everyone's performance taper off quickly because of how powerful it already is, and how little any user can tweak under the hood? -- I agree it's still early and there's room for exceptions: -there will be brand new markets with applications that no one has thought of yet. My applications listed here are 'obvious' in the same way 1995 observers for the Internet had 'obvious' ideas - namely, wrong and not imaginative enough. -even if you have to compete with incumbents, there will still be big winners. Even among all the meal kit companies, there was still one big winner - Hello Fresh. I just think it's going to be hyper-competitive, and founders will find it's less about technology and product (what they set out to focus on) and more about marketing/distribution. |