Editor's Note: This article takes Naval Ravikant's podcast statement that "pure software is not worth investing in" as a starting point to discuss the repricing of technology companies in the AI era. The core of the article is not just about criticizing Apple or SaaS, but pointing out a deeper change: the future's true scarcity is no longer the software itself, but distribution channels, network effects, proprietary data, hardware integration, brand community, and vertical industry barriers. In other words, AI is making "writing software" cheaper and forcing entrepreneurs to reconsider a more fundamental question: what does your company have that AI cannot replicate?
This change implies a reassessment for both large and startup companies. Apple's risk is that if the interaction layer is taken over by AI intelligent agents, its long-standing premium on software experience may be weakened; the risk for SaaS companies is that the functionality itself is increasingly hard to become a moat.
However, at the same time, the democratization of software production capacity may also bring about a new wave of individual creators and small team companies. For homogenized software, this is a dangerous era; it may also be an unprecedented opportunity window for founders with distribution, taste, data, and industry depth.
Below is the original text:
Apple is already dead, but the market hasn't had the chance to conduct the funeral yet.
This is not a sensational statement, but a structural summary of the industry's changes over the past six months. Naval Ravikant's statement in a podcast last week almost confirmed this. As one of the tech industry’s most patient investors and one of the sharpest capital allocators in the past two decades, he has given an extremely clear conclusion to the entire software industry: pure software is no longer worth investing in.
For founders, the real question is not whether you agree with this assessment, but whether you have 18 months left to complete the transformation before the market fully reacts.
Here is his judgment and what this means for all entrepreneurs.
No One Can Stop Apple from Structural Decline
Apple will not go bankrupt, nor will it vanish from your pocket next year. The collapse Navell mentioned is not operational but economic.
Apple's $3 trillion market cap is fundamentally supported by one thing: delivering a superior software experience that underpins the premium pricing of its hardware. Once this experience advantage no longer holds, Apple will become a better-crafted Samsung. And this is happening.
The interaction layer is being commoditized. In the next 24 months, how most people open apps will change: they will no longer proactively enter individual apps but will directly interact with an AI intelligence and have the required interface generated in real time by the intelligence. Apple's carefully constructed App Store, human-computer interaction guidelines, design aesthetics, and ecosystem moat will rapidly lose value once the interface itself can be instantly generated by AI on any device.
What is Apple's response to this shift? Licensing to Google, introducing Gemini.
It means that the company that has always viewed "controlling the experience layer" as its core identity is now outsourcing the experience layer to its fiercest competitor. After Apple's self-developed AI bet failed, it is patching the internal strategic gap with external models.
This is almost a rapid reenactment of the "post-mobile era Microsoft" script.
Microsoft missed the mobile era not because it lacked resources but because it was unwilling to build a touch-native operating system from scratch. Its dominance in the old era made it mistakenly believe that the old paradigm would continue. By the time Microsoft truly accepted reality, Apple had won the next decade. Today, Microsoft is still a $3 trillion company, but Windows has lost the consumer war it could have won.
Apple is now making the same mistake in the AI wave: it still believes that its hardware-first DNA can carry it through the intelligent agent era.
But this path is destined to be arduous. Once the operating system and interaction interface are commoditized, Apple's profit margin will be compressed to the level of hardware commodities. And hardware premium is precisely the core profit source that supports Apple's entire business empire. At that point, it will be difficult to avoid a structural revenue and valuation reassessment.
You can certainly continue to hold Apple's stock, but do not consider it a growth stock anymore. The historically most valuable hardware company is about to be forced to answer a cruel question: without a software moat, how much is its hardware really worth?
If Your Moat Is Software, You Just Have 18 Months
For founders, the harder part to accept is here.
Naval said, "Pure software is not worth investing in," and that statement is not wrong. But what he did not elaborate on is: what those SaaS companies that were valued in the last funding cycle in Series A and Series B will face next.
The answer is: most of them are already dead, they just haven't realized it yet.
The logic is not complex. The reason your SaaS company exists is because it was hard to build that product in the past. The reason you were able to raise money is that technical execution required a full team. Your moat—whether you are willing to admit it or not—essentially comes from the difficulty of replicating what you have built.
And this difficulty is collapsing.
A two-person team today using Claude Code can replicate about 80% of the core features of most B2B SaaS products in 90 days. Not a toy version, but a usable product with a reasonable architecture, basic security, and room for extension. The remaining 20%—specific integrations, enterprise sales processes, compliance workflows—still exist, of course. But that is not a moat; it is more like a friction cost. And the next generation of smart bodies iterate every quarter, further compressing these friction costs.
Similar changes have already begun to occur. Adobe's $20 billion acquisition of Figma in 2022 was because Figma was considered a product structurally hard to replicate at the time. But now, design tools with about 70% of Figma's core functionality have been independently developed in a matter of months.
Salesforce is one of the most valuable SaaS companies in history. But an AI-native CRM that did not exist 18 months ago has already begun to eat into its market share in the mid-market. Workday, ServiceNow, Atlassian, Asana—each is becoming a potential target for AI-native replacements, and the size of those replacement teams is even smaller than their own HR departments.
Survivors in this transformation will not be the companies that write the best software. Because the value of software itself is approaching zero.
What will truly survive are the companies that have built things that AI cannot directly replicate: channel distribution, network effects, data flywheels, hardware integration, brand, community, regulatory moats. These are the last remaining bastions of the new age.
If your honest answer to the question "What is our moat" is "Our product is better," then you probably only have about 18 months to find a real moat. Otherwise, you will likely watch your valuation evaporate by 70% to 90% in the next funding round.
The founders who can survive this transition are those who take these signals seriously today. Those who choose to dismiss them as noise will most likely write a layoff memo in 2027 and then wonder in confusion: why did everything happen so fast?
The question is, which one are you?
Winning the Next Decade's Company Without Relying on Software Itself
If pure software is no longer worth investing in, then what is worth investing in?
Naval provided guidance in the podcast: hardware, AI models, and businesses with network effects. Going further, what founders really need to consider now are the following types of moats.
First, Channel Distribution.
Today, the truly dominant companies are not necessarily the best product companies but the ones with the most direct customer relationships. The product is just a vessel to serve the customer; the audience is the moat. Your email list, community, reputation, and distribution network are all assets.
If you still believe that "marketing" is a phase that starts after the product is done right, then you are already behind. In the future, marketing itself is part of the product, and the product is just the downstream of traffic and relationships.
Second, Network Effects.
Businesses that can resist the commoditization of AI are those whose value comes from the users themselves, not just the functionality. Discord, Roblox, LinkedIn, Reddit cannot be easily replicated, not because their software engineering is so complex, but because users are locked in by other users.
Does your product become more valuable as more users join? If the answer is yes, you have longevity. If there is no substantial difference in product value between 100 users and 100,000 users, then you are in danger. AI can replicate features, but it cannot replicate a real operating community.
Third, Data Flywheel.
Companies that can accumulate proprietary data through user interactions, train better models with this data, and create a feedback loop have long-term value. Tesla's autopilot data, Bloomberg Terminal data, fundamentally appreciate in compounding.
However, if your product is just a UI layer on top of a public API, then you don't have a real asset in your hands. With every user interaction, if you cannot crystallize data that your competitors cannot access, it will be challenging for your product to form a long-term moat.
Fourth, Hardware Integration.
Companies that master the physical layer have the longest defense cycle. Tesla, Anduril, SpaceX, Apple's chip business, Boston Dynamics are all typical examples. Hardware is difficult, the supply chain is difficult, manufacturing is difficult, and the complexity of the physical world cannot be directly smoothed out by AI.
AI does not automatically manufacture chips, batteries, rockets, or robots. The physical world is still one of the hardest moats to rapidly replicate within the entire economy.
Fifth, Vertical Depth.
The risk exposure of horizontal SaaS giants is the greatest, while vertical platforms deeply rooted in an industry are actually safer. General project management tools are already very risky, but if you are deeply involved in the construction industry, mastering approval processes, inspection networks, regulatory data, and industry relationships, then it's a different story.
In the future, instead of creating shallow tools in ten industries, it's better to go deep in one industry.
If you are now restructuring your strategy, there is only one core question: In the next 12 months, what kind of real moat can you build in your business? Not some day in the future, but now.
Founders who are the first to complete the transformation will receive the survivor market after others fall.
The Collapse's Other Side is the Biggest Entrepreneurial Opportunity in History
This is also the part that many founders are most likely to overlook when they hear "Software is Dead." They only see what is being destroyed but fail to see the opportunities being opened up.
Naval's most optimistic judgment in his podcast is: Software is experiencing a renaissance for individual creators. This is not the death of software but the democratization of software production capabilities.
Similar history has precedents. Notch single-handedly developed Minecraft; Markus Frind alone grew Plenty of Fish to a $10 million annual profit; when Instagram was acquired by Facebook for $1 billion, the entire company had only 13 employees; when WhatsApp exited for $19 billion, it had only 55 employees.
These companies collectively prove one thing: a founder's vision not diluted by organizational coordination costs can directly translate into product execution.
But in the past, they were more of an oddity. Independent founders could create interesting things but struggled to scale. Once the company expanded and the team grew, compromises began to appear, and the vision started to get diluted. That unique thing that made the product special often slowly disappeared in a committee-style polishing process.
What is truly changing now is the ceiling.
The future described by Naval is a single-founder company that can operate at the speed of a 50-person team. Users provide bug feedback within the app, an AI reviews it every 24 hours, drafts a fix, submits a pull request, runs tests; the founder only needs to review, approve, and deploy. Customer support is handled by AI, which can also write code to fix underlying issues. Users vote on feature requests, and the AI builds them, while the founder ensures quality control.
There is no coordination cost, no internal politics, no diluted vision, no engineers blaming each other for critical details, no designers endlessly arguing about icon placement, and no product managers turning a bold version into a safe one.
The founder's vision can go straight from brain to launch, with minimal organizational friction in between.
This is not theoretical; it is already happening in part. Pieter Levels has single-handedly built multiple seven-figure revenue businesses. More and more indie developers are running companies today that three years ago would have required Series A funding to sustain. AI-native indie operators are creating new outcomes that the venture capital industry has not yet fully priced in.
The next unicorn could potentially have only one employee. The next decacorn may have no more than ten.
If you are a creator, operator, marketer, or founder who has been waiting for an entry ticket, the ticket has arrived. The tech bottleneck is dissipating, and startup costs are collapsing. What stands between you and a real business now are not engineering teams, funding resources, or organizational size but three questions: Do you have something worth saying? Do you have good taste in judgment? Do you have the discipline for continuous delivery?
For those building homogenized software, this is the worst time in history.
For those building sharp, distributed, community-driven, data-rich, deep-product individuals, this is the best time in history.
Both of these things are true simultaneously. Which one applies to you depends on what you do in the next 18 months.
The window is open but not forever
Starting from here, founders roughly have three paths.
The first one is to treat it as noise.
Convince yourself that Apple is too big to fail, that your SaaS is unique enough, that AI programming intelligence is overhyped, and that everything will eventually return to normal. You will have many companions in this belief, as most founders will choose this path. However, most founders will also lose out in this cycle as a result.
The second one is to fall into panic.
Suddenly shorten the runway, hastily lay off employees, and blindly pivot. This is the cost of reacting too late. Those truly destroyed by this transformation may not be those who didn't see any change at all, but those who saw it 12 months too late, and had to hastily switch directions with no funds, time, or bargaining chips left.
The third one is to take this 18-month window seriously.
Honestly examine your moat, start building distribution channels before you really need them, find differentiators that AI cannot replicate, lay the groundwork for the upcoming world instead of continuing to optimize for the old world you hope to retain.
Naval's expression is very restrained yet very clear: "Pure software, not worth investing in."
This is not something said by a risk-averse person, but rather by someone who has spent twenty years assessing what is worth investing in, and now believes that most of what is currently being invested in is no longer worth it, giving the final conclusion.
Apple has already entered structural decline, and most SaaS founders may be next. The companies that ultimately survive will be those who, upon hearing this assessment, took action before everyone else realized the truth.
The window has opened, but it will not stay open forever. The real question is: in the next 18 months, are you building a moat that can withstand the test, or are you watching your existing moat erode in the face of reality?
Most people won't make it. A few will. The difference lies in what you start doing this quarter.
Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:
Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats
Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App
Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia
