It has become clear to me that we've entered the era of abundant software. Meaning, software is no longer this cool novel thing that only the most talented people can create. Everyone now has access to create their own software that does the thing they want to do, in the way they want it done.
Set aside the quality of the software - most people never cared about how well the code is structured or whether it's spaghetti code. What really matters is can the thing do the thing I want it to do? And in most cases, the answer is yes.
Vibe coding has enabled anyone to build practically anything they want for a fraction of the cost it would have taken them before. So what happens when software becomes so commonplace that we treat it as utility - a given?
Software dies faster
Whatever was created yesterday, will die tomorrow. Throwaway code is now commonplace. When time is not an obstacle to creating things, you can discard whatever you cobbled together much faster without so much as a shed tear.
Faster idea iteration
With fast software come fast ideas testing. We already see an explosion of tools in the nostr ecosystem. Many will end up in the trash bin, as they should. More ideas = more trash. But with more ideas we'll also see more interesting pieces of code survive. And, if they are open source, as most nostr apps are, we'll see variations of those ideas - forked and built out at breakneck pace.
Distribution will matter much more than execution
It used to be that execution mattered in software development. Now that everyone can make anything, execution won't mean much. As long as your software does something useful and works decently without too many bugs, that'll do. With a laying playing field in execution, distribution will make or break a project. Winners will need to think distribution first.
Specialization / Niching down
Coupled with distribution, having a clear audience segment in mind will lead to faster product market fit. Poorly thought out ideas that lack clear purpose will fall aside as purpose-driven software edges them out to serve a specific audience.
Open tools will generally fair better than closed ones
As the cost to develop exceptional software continues to drop, open systems will tend to do better than closed ones, but only if the market deems openness as beneficial. And by open I don't mean free - just ones that tap into a shared method of distribution and can iterate faster. In fact, I might even say that paid + open will do better than free + open due to sheer obstacles with human perception of free = garbage mindset.
An explosion of choice
With abundance software, people get more choices. With choices, price competition. And with price competition you get more entrants, and more choices. It's a great cycle for people, not so much for entrepreneurs who rely on predictable income.
So what's a person to do?
If your goal is to simply solve your own problems - create tools that do this for you. One thing I started doing is putting together a sort of "portfolio" of things I've "created". This helps me find my tools faster, but also showcase them to anyone who might find them useful.
While not meant for potential employers, I think if someone's goal is to show their work, this is not a bad way to do it. A list of github repos could work as well, but this is just a quicker way to see what you've been up to, or what you're interested in.
For entrepreneurs - your goal is probably to build small tools that solve specific problems that people are willing to pay for. This means that you'll likely face sharp competition and will spend quite a bit on your vibe coding credits to get the tool into a bug-free state that does a thing well enough to ask for money.
Charging fast and early will be more important than waiting for some perfection to launch a paid tier. If people are not willing to part with their money for the thing you created, it's better to quickly cut your losses and work on something that might. One thing I've seen people do now is build for specific paid keywords, launch a tool fast to see if it gains any traction in app stores, and then either double down on sticky ideas, or cut lose anything that loses traction. This seems like a rational way of building things in a world where anyone can build the thing you're working on.
Investing in quality once an idea takes off will probably pay dividends. An app I have installed on my phone called "myNoise" is a collection of soundscapes - some free and many paid. It's a simple idea anyone can execute, but it sets itself apart with premium soundscapes. This obviously requires professional sound engineering, recording, editing etc... This is how you can create a moat in your field as long as you're willing to put in the work.
I'm curious what you think are the major changes coming ahead? What will it mean for software development and who stands to win most?