[fauigerzigerk]

>But if e.g. a developer can do 50% more, shouldn't it be worth it to pay up to 50% of developer salary for the product?

That's the upper bound but it's not the market price.

Accounting software (+ hardware) doesn't cost nearly as much as the accountant hours it saves. Accountant salaries are simply not a relevant yardstick for the price that software vendors can charge for accounting software.

Equally, the market price for code generators will not stay anywhere near the price of developer hours it saves. It will be determined by competition.

[mewpmewp2]

Because accounting software is cheaper due to competition. In software eng Claude is currently strongest and there's higher costs involved than normal SaaS. There are many fields in which the tools/machinery cost more than the salaries of people.

[fauigerzigerk]

>Because accounting software is cheaper due to competition. In software eng Claude is currently strongest and there's higher costs involved than normal SaaS.

Yes, competition not salaries determines the margins that software vendors can charge. That's exactly what I'm saying.

My expectation is that competition between coding agents will stay strong and costs for the current level of software engineering performance will fall.

>There are many fields in which the tools/machinery cost more than the salaries of people.

For example?

[mewpmewp2]

Agriculture, oil drilling, trucking, etc...

[fauigerzigerk]

The machines in those sectors do not cost nearly as much as doing the same work manually. Not even close.

[mewpmewp2]

Of course not, but they cost more than the person using them, it's multiplying the productivity of that person, so if AI multiplied enough as well it would make sense.

[fauigerzigerk]

That's beside the point.

The question was whether the salaries that would have been paid for the working hours replaced by the machine are a realistic yardstick for the market price of the machine.

That's clearly not the case in any industry.