[swiftcoder]

> That is, until a given SaaS becomes too greedy and someone identifies the core features people actually use, then spends a few weeks replicating them internally.

I think a lot of SaaS are actually pretty safe, if only due to organisations desiring to make compliance someone else's problem.

We don't pay $$$ for a SaaS just because it would be time consuming to replicate it - we pay it because we'd rather not have to add the in-house replacement to our SOC2/HIPAA/GDPR compliance audit every year, and legal prefers it because there is someone else to sue if things go sideways in those areas.

[ben_w]

Yeah, this is basically why I as a landlord have an agent who takes 10%+VAT just to know what the rules are and who to call when things go wrong, and then bills me on top for listing the property when empty, any works that need doing etc.

[outime]

I'm aware of the responsibility shifting here but even then my point still stands. I've seen some SaaS companies tighten their grip thinking "they'll never bother because of the regulatory burden" only to watch large customers walk away and build in-house solutions instead. Super common? No, but this was pre-LLM and slightly later.

Compliance is an important factor in customer retention, but the cost of the other side of the equation (technical implementation) has dropped significantly and in some cases could be what tips the balance.