The wrong question about AI is which software companies can defend their moats. The right question is which companies, SaaS or otherwise, benefit most from code becoming a cheap, abundant input. Not Boring's latest essay argues these are not the same question, and confusing them is why most AI-and-software analysis fails.
The thesis is explicit: companies that absorb newly cheap software capabilities and deploy them across large, complex industries will not merely survive AI disruption. They will expand into territory that was previously unreachable. The essay names them the Standard Oils of this era, companies that capture high ground through technological leverage and then compound outward. Point solutions and narrow SaaS tools are the ones facing existential pressure, not these compounders.
Read the original for the structural argument behind the framing. The value is not in the conclusion but in how the author builds the case for why input abundance reshapes competitive dynamics at the industry level, not just the product level. If you think about software moats for a living, this reframe is worth the time.
[READ ORIGINAL →]