We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
When the models catch up
Hiten Shah's new essay uses Gamma to separate finding a customer problem from being able to solve it. Gamma interviewed 100 people before building. They named the same frustrations: the blank page, hours spent formatting, and worry that a weak deck would make them look less capable . The first product made arranging slides easier, but users still had to write most of the content. Co-founder Jon Noronha estimates, looking back, that only about 5–10% of signups reached value . After a three-month rebuild around generative AI, users could describe an idea and react to a GPT-4 draft . Shah says the result can't be credited to that change alone, because onboarding and infrastructure changed at the same time .
His main lessons for PMs:
- A demo isn't a product. In his illustration, five independent steps that each succeed 80% of the time finish the whole job only about 33% of the time. At 95% per step, it's about 77% . The product has to make the model dependable through context, tools, verification and recovery, at a price customers will pay .
- Scaffolding expires. Layout restrictions that made 2023 models usable were later holding stronger models back. What has to stay dependable is the customer's commitments: saved work, permissions, editability .
- Before the models are ready, ship work customers can finish today. Watch where they get stuck and whether they come back, and log failures at the level of complete tasks so they become reusable evals. Moats such as customer context, integrations and distribution are earned through use . Shah points to KISSmetrics, which was early in its market until competitors closed the gap: "Being early gives you time" .
He also posted a prompt to run after a coding agent builds a feature. It asks the agent to list up to three consequential user-facing choices you didn't specify, with evidence, without changing anything. Examples include whether users can skip signup or what happens when a customer cancels .
The PM job when building is nearly free
Bolt's Eric Simons argues that the classic product process was a "rationing protocol" for expensive software. Now PMs can skip low-fidelity prototypes and build the real thing . In Bolt's survey of PMs who use Bolt, 38% now bring engineering in earlier with a real prototype, and 30% bring engineering in only after validating the idea . In his view, the lasting advantage is customer context: ongoing conversations and pain points, not "a golden idea" .
The bottleneck moves to verification. Blacksmith's founder says writing 100x the code doesn't help if you can't validate it, and the company is building autonomous QA that collects screenshots and video as evidence . A principal engineer on Reddit says he can produce 100 PRs a week, but finding the roughly 10% that are bad "is such a slog" . A caution for anyone building in this space: Synathic, an agent-write verifier, got no trials from 8 design partners because people patch the problem themselves cheaply. Its builder's takeaway is that adoption cost decides everything and that detection latency matters more than failure type .
PM careers: fewer backfills, more negotiation
Aakash Gupta reports that in 2025, companies hired 0.92 outside PMs for every PM who left, meaning roles were closed rather than refilled . His negotiation playbook:
- Set walk-away, target and anchor numbers before the first call .
- Let the employer name a number first .
- When base pay hits the top of the band, trade for sign-on, equity or an earlier review .
All five 2026 cohort negotiations he wrote up got more money, and none lost the offer . He also shares a heuristic from Mark Pincus: a change is "better" only if 10 out of 10 users would pick it; otherwise call it "new" .
Practices worth stealing
- AI feedback triage with guardrails. One PM runs a weekly Claude automation that themes feedback, sends uncertain items to human review, and never lets the model create or change themes . Another commenter recommends labeling 100 items by hand and using them as an eval to compare models over time .
- Frame the outcome first. Strategyzer's new Problem Framing Map rests on the idea that "the problem is when you can't get to where you want to go." In their example, contractor interviews showed nobody owned the end-to-end system, which led to very different fixes .
- A daily pre-mortem. Reed Hastings spent 10 minutes a day assuming Netflix had crashed and asking what he did to cause it. He calls it "a quiet little reservoir of darkness" .
- Gamma’s August 2022 Product Hunt launch won Product of the Day, Week, and Month, but co-founder Jon Noronha later estimated that only about 5–10% of signups reached value. Interviews with 100 people exposed blank-page and formatting frustrations, while the original editor still left customers to create most content and structure the story. After a three-month rebuild around generative AI, users could describe an idea and receive a first draft; the relaunch ranked seventh, but the comparison is not controlled because the product, onboarding, and infrastructure also changed.
- AI product reliability depends on the whole customer task, not a compelling demo: in an illustrative example, five independent steps each succeeding 80% of the time yield about 33% end-to-end success, versus about 77% at 95%; the article cautions this is not a real-product reliability prediction. Product teams must make model capability dependable through context, tools, verification, recovery, and viable cost.
- Product scaffolding must evolve with models: Cognition changed its prompting after Sonnet 4.5 exposed assumptions in its agent, while Gamma found that restrictions useful for weaker models were holding stronger ones back. Keep customer commitments such as saved work, permissions, and editability dependable even as temporary technical constraints change.
- Before models are ready, ship useful work customers can complete; observe where they get stuck, which results they accept, repair effort, and whether they return. Track failures across complete tasks—including models, tools, data, tests, and human intervention—to build reusable evaluations. Shah says KISSmetrics was three years ahead but his shifting priorities let that lead disappear; model access likewise does not secure a lasting advantage, so customer context, integrations, distribution, and workflow knowledge must be earned through use.
- Gamma interviewed 100 people before building; they described blank-page starts, time lost formatting slides, and fear that a poor presentation would make them seem less capable. Its first browser-native editor made arranging and sharing easier, but still left users to create most of the material and structure the story . Noronha later estimated that only about 5–10% of initial signups reached value; the GPT-4 relaunch let users describe an idea and react to a generated draft, though the article cautions that its outcome cannot be attributed to one change because the product, onboarding, and infrastructure also changed .
- Treat a compelling AI demo as distinct from a dependable product: a customer task can require several successful steps, and the article’s illustrative example puts five independent steps with 80% success each at about 33% end-to-end success. The product must make model capability dependable through context, tools, verification, recovery, and affordable delivery; the calculation is illustrative, not a prediction for a real product .
- Revisit model-dependent engineering as capabilities change: Gamma found restrictions that helped earlier models generate readable presentations were holding stronger models back. Separate temporary scaffolding from durable customer commitments such as saved work, permissions, and editable presentations .
- When an automated first output becomes commonplace, look for the next unresolved customer need: Gamma shifted toward brand-specific design, editing, and story development, while Lovable broadened from generating applications toward deploying and operating them .
- If the full promised outcome depends on future models, begin with work customers can finish today; observe where they get stuck, what they accept, how much repair is needed, and whether they return. Track failures across complete tasks—including models, tools, data, tests, and human intervention—as reusable evaluations, and earn differentiation through customer context, integrations, distribution, workflow knowledge, and verification . Reliability, cost, and recovery requirements should also reflect the task’s stakes .
- Doritos responded to a declining brand by giving fans control over making and submitting Super Bowl ads: the first contest drew more than 1,000 entries, with five finalists receiving $10,000 each; over the contest’s 10 years, it generated more than 30,000 fan-made ads. As a crowdsourcing pattern for product teams, this shows how user contributions can create a large pool of ideas, but the hit rate was low: the speaker says 98% of submissions were not usable or airable. The payoff was uneven—the retrospective characterizes it as a great opportunity for about 10 people and a free test for the other 30,000—making participant incentives and fairness important design considerations.
- For B2B SaaS, Wispr Flow’s experience suggests trying paid UGC once the product has PMF and organic pull: paid can quickly test whether messaging resonates and cold traffic converts, while product quality remains the underlying growth driver.
- Wispr Flow pays creators a percentage of the ad spend behind their ads. To keep new creators engaged while they improve, it uses a “smart retainer”—for example, a 25-video quota guarantees $1,500, with commissions offsetting the guarantee; strong creators can later move to commission alone.
- Recruit creators who speak to distinct ICP niches and encourage them to experiment rather than copy top-spend ads: Hector warns that similar ads fatigue quickly, and Wispr’s creators target audiences ranging from lawyers and engineers to moms and sales reps.
- In 2025, companies hired 0.92 external PMs for every PM who left; the post characterizes this as roles being closed rather than refilled.
- For PM offers, set walk-away, target, and anchor numbers and research the pay band first; ask the employer’s range before naming your number, and request the offer in writing rather than accepting on the call. If base pay is capped, consider trading for sign-on, equity, an earlier review, or non-salary terms; sign-on is described as easiest to move, stock as more movable at senior levels, and level as mostly set in interviews.
- Aakash reports that all five 2026 cohort negotiations he wrote up resulted in more, with no offers withdrawn; two people were unemployed when they negotiated.
- Mark Pincus’s product guidance: call a change “better” only if all 10 users would choose it; otherwise treat it as new, and use frameworks as lenses rather than dogma. He also advises pursuing less new work early in a platform shift; his 80–90% download-step drop-off figure comes from Zynga Poker and is explicitly not a benchmark.
- For experiments, set the click-through success threshold before seeing results. Pocket FM CEO Rohan Nayak cited a move from 2% to 2.25% CTR alongside about 30% lower customer acquisition cost.
Hiten Shah called the linked playbook “epic” and “must read.” Product teams can apply three ideas from it:
- Define the customer before positioning: the same product may need different promises for different customer segments, and messaging should lead with the outcome rather than features or deliverables.
- Ground discovery and messaging in customer evidence: map customers’ current realities, frustrations, fears, and goals; talk to customers and use their own words; sales-call transcripts can surface purchase reasons, desired outcomes, pain points, and objections.
- When refining an offer, identify which of speed, ease, or risk is weakest and improve that dimension; copy can communicate an offer’s value but cannot create value that is not there.
- Netflix’s 2011 Quickster split came too early: separating DVD and streaming created an effective price increase, and Hastings said the company should have grandfathered existing customers; its focus on moving to streaming pushed it to drop DVD too abruptly.
- Hastings described a daily 10-minute practice of assuming Netflix had failed and asking what caused it, to counter the blind spots that can come with leaders’ optimism and surface negative scenarios.
- Netflix initially underestimated the value of original content: an earlier attempt failed because the company lacked distribution scale, and Hastings thought making content would lose money. He later let Ted Sarandos take home-run bets; Orange Is the New Black and House of Cards helped establish Netflix in the content business.
- Hastings said AI tutoring is currently not very useful, but expects it to improve. His product vision distinguishes answer delivery from learning: an AI tutor should quiz and question learners, make learning playful and age-appropriate, and use suitable training data and motivational design; he expects generalized tutors within two to four years.
- Bolt’s founder argues that AI coding tools let PMs move beyond specs and tickets to build usable, high-fidelity prototypes for customer feedback and stakeholder alignment. Low-fidelity prototypes remain an option, but direct builds can be faster and avoid some of the interpretation loss of specs and wireframes.
- In a survey of PMs using Bolt, 38% reportedly brought engineering in earlier with a real prototype, while 30% involved engineering after validating an idea; the speaker says some prototypes were made before design or engineering work.
- The speaker says a PM’s durable advantage is customer context: ongoing conversations and understanding of customer pain points, technology, design, and adoption inform better ideas and execution. AI makes it easier to build and test solutions, but does not replace discovery and validation.
- Blacksmith argues agentic coding is shifting the bottleneck from writing software to validating it and getting confidence that it works; it is developing autonomous QA that collects evidence such as screenshots and video snippets so developers can merge changes faster.
- Blacksmith differentiates its CI product through infrastructure tailored to CI workloads and by placing cached artifacts close to compute.
- Blacksmith reports that LangChain’s wait to acquire CI compute fell from 15–20 minutes on GCP to 10–15 seconds on Blacksmith. The company says it keeps the product surface area small and avoids bespoke customer requirements, scaling that surface area with the team; it credits this focus with supporting many customers and machines with a small team.
Wispr Flow adapted e-commerce paid-UGC for B2B SaaS: creators make ads and receive a cut of ad spend, with its top creators earning $100K+ annually. The post associates this program with 30x+ revenue growth over the past year and a recent $2B valuation. A related clip presents Hector Serrano’s case that creators with smaller followings can be better investments for companies than big influencers.
- Normalize feedback from different channels into per-item records (for example, ID, source, summary, themes/tags, and sender), then generate weekly views by theme and customer. A lightweight prototype can start with inspectable files or JSON and move to a database for more robust multiuser use.
- Keep the taxonomy human-owned and route uncertain classifications to human review. Treat AI theme analysis as directional, not a single source of truth: use it alongside customer outreach and discovery, and check classification quality against a manually labeled sample (for example, 100 inputs), tracking performance and comparing models over time.
- One commenter argues that scheduled jobs and AI make in-house feedback analysis feasible for someone with 3–5 years of analytics experience, raising the bar for SaaS tools to be cheaper and more feature-rich to justify buying.
- Strategyzer launched its Problem Framing Playbook on its platform. It provides step-by-step guidance, short just-in-time videos and collaborative activities; teams frame a challenge, test assumptions through structured sailboat interviews and other experiments, then refine the map using evidence, with AI workflows to analyze findings.
- The map frames a challenge around stakeholders’ jobs, desired outcomes, current reality, blockers and enablers, and metrics. Its central guidance is to define what success looks like before selecting solutions, rather than relying on an abstract problem statement.
- In the webinar’s healthcare-website example, interviews with contractors challenged the initial assumptions: coordination was outside their scope, and each focused on completing their own piece. Reframing the issue as a lack of end-to-end ownership led to different solutions, including coordinating the contractors’ overall workflow and putting a contractor in charge.
Startup growth should be evaluated against customer demand and business outcomes rather than headcount alone: a commenter warns that headcount increases burn without increasing valuation, while another says hiring should be tied to actual customer demand and revenue support. The thread’s suggested checks include ARR and burn rate, runway, and whether customers stay.
A B2C product marketer with seven years in the field argues that AI could squeeze PMM’s intermediary role: product and leadership teams may generate messaging themselves, while channel owners can ideate and test quickly enough to reduce the need for stakeholder feedback. The commenter is trying to move into growth and views channel ownership as more durable.
- Synathic, an open-source Python decorator that checks agent database writes with SQL, had no trials among 8 design partners; about 19 of 20 Reddit comments said people already handled the problem with a few lines of code or a cron job, although users also described green checks masking empty or stale results for days. The builder’s product lesson was that cheap workarounds make adoption cost decisive: an independent read is a stronger check but requires more setup, while detection latency (days versus minutes) is a more useful metric than failure type.
- For customer discovery, focus on users’ actual struggles and workflows rather than asking what they would pay for; stated pain can be noisy, overstated, or not yet recognized, so investigate how they currently solve the problem.
- A principal engineer building agentic development pipelines described verification as a bottleneck: they can generate 100 PRs a week, estimate about 10% may be bad, and find identifying them a slog.
Product teams should audit coding agents’ implicit product decisions after feature implementation: ask the agent to compare the original requests with the implementation, identify up to three consequential unspecified user-facing choices, show evidence, flag missing context, and make no changes. Use the same project so the agent can access the original requests. These choices can include whether users can skip signup or what happens when a customer cancels—decisions users experience even if the agent made them.
- For a localized Rocket Money-like product, validate the job before coding: manually review a handful of people’s bank statements for forgotten subscriptions, and look for repeat requests or existing payment for a clunky workaround as evidence of demand.
- Check country-specific bank/card-data access and banking or regulatory constraints before assuming the U.S. product can be localized; commenters identify these as potential obstacles to the underlying service.
- A broader discovery loop: start with a problem and desired customer transformation, generate possible solutions, then test risky assumptions against data, customer insights, and experiments—quickly, over days rather than weeks.
- Tutor Intelligence treats robotics as a full-stack product problem: progress depends on trade-offs across models, hardware, software, supply chain, customers, and product, with successful business units serving as proof that the platform works.
- Tutor favors a general-capability product shaped by a diverse customer base over bespoke projects for one large customer; it says custom systems can take years to build, may not work, and may solve a problem the customer no longer has.
- Its product organization is built for rapid iteration: manufacturing changes every two weeks, code ships daily or in major biweekly releases, and product works alongside customer success and implementation, with research closely tied to customer problems so new capabilities can reach the field faster.
- Tutor sells on operational value rather than AI messaging, pitching robots at $16 an hour; it reports a 40–60-day average from first call to signed contract and about 40 days from contract to deployment. The buyer is often a COO or general manager while factory workers are the users, so naming robots is one way Tutor builds user ownership and rapport.
Coding agents make it easier to discard a working first version, supporting a more disposable approach to early product implementation.
A commenter said their organization would soon have a product manager vacancy and invited interested people to DM, but provided no employer, timing, or role-level details.
When the models catch up
I hunted Gamma’s first Product Hunt launch in August 2022. It won Product of the Day, Week, and Month.
Seven months later, Gamma launched again with GPT-4 and finished seventh for the day. That second launch was the one that found product-market fit.
The original Gamma (opens in new tab) had earned plenty of attention. Its promise was easy to understand. You could write like a document and present like a deck, without wrestling with PowerPoint. Yet people who signed up still had to do most of the hard work themselves.
Gamma understood the job before the technology was ready
Gamma’s founders started with research. Before building the product, they interviewed 100 people (opens in new tab) about the last presentation they’d made. The interviewees had different jobs, but the frustrations were remarkably consistent.
People hated starting from a blank page. They spent hours formatting slides when they should have been developing their ideas. Many worried that a poor presentation would make them appear less capable than they were.
The first version of Gamma addressed those frustrations with a flexible, browser-native presentation format. It made arranging and sharing material easier. But the customer still needed to create most of the material and structure the story. The blank page had become a better editor.
After its August 2022 Product Hunt launch, co-founder Jon Noronha later recalled that only roughly 5 to 10 percent of people signing up reached the point where they experienced value. That’s his retrospective estimate, rather than a published cohort analysis.
By late 2022, Gamma had about 60,000 users and a little more than a year of runway remaining, according to co-founder Grant Lee (opens in new tab). The team spent three months rebuilding around generative AI instead of continuing to polish the original editor.
On March 27, 2023, Gamma AI (opens in new tab) gave customers a different starting point. Describe an idea and GPT-4 could create the content and layout of a first draft in minutes. Customers could begin by reacting to a presentation rather than making one from scratch.
The relaunch finished seventh on Product Hunt. Grant hunted it himself. Noronha later described signups rising rapidly, servers struggling under the load, and people contacting Gamma asking how they could pay. By November 2025, Gamma reported (opens in new tab) crossing $100 million in annual recurring revenue while profitable.
Even that growth introduced a problem the first launch had never faced. Noronha has spoken about AI tourism (opens in new tab), when customers eagerly try a new AI product or pay once without becoming regular users. Presentations are episodic work. Gamma had to learn which customers returned, how often, and what they still needed after the first draft.
Those rankings aren’t a controlled experiment. Gamma redesigned onboarding, reworked its infrastructure, and changed the product while models improved. We can’t separate those effects from the public evidence. What we can see is the new experience customers received. The research had already revealed the need, and better technology finally allowed Gamma to take on more of the work.
Gamma had discovered the customer problem before it could build a product that adequately solved it.
It hadn’t promised AI-generated presentations in 2022. The founders expanded their promise when the capability arrived. Other startups have made the bigger promise first, then spent months trying to build a product that could keep it.
The gap between an impressive demo and a useful product
Consider what someone expects when asking an AI product to build an application. They want something they can use, rather than a screenshot of an interface or a folder of plausible code.
That result requires a sequence of successful steps. The system needs to understand the request, create the interface, connect the backend, handle authentication, and deploy something that works. Each step introduces another chance for the experience to fail.
Suppose five necessary steps each succeed 80 percent of the time. If those outcomes were independent, the whole job would succeed only about 33 percent of the time. Raise each step to 95 percent, and the chance of completing all five rises to about 77 percent.
Real agents have correlated errors, retries, tests, and recovery mechanisms, so this isn’t a prediction of any real product’s reliability. It illustrates why improvements that look modest in individual capabilities can make such a dramatic difference to the end-to-end experience. A demonstration that succeeds once can look magical even if customers regularly fail on their next attempt.
The model has to become capable enough. Then the application has to make that capability dependable through context, tools, verification, and recovery. Finally, the company must deliver the result at a cost customers will pay.
Those milestones often arrive at different times. Lovable’s launch history shows what happens when a company makes the product promise before all of them line up.
Lovable spent two launches trying to make the promise real
The team behind Lovable initially built GPT Engineer, an attempt to generate software from natural-language instructions. Its account of 2024 (opens in new tab) describes two disappointing launches.
The technology could create interesting outputs, but users largely saw potential. When Lovable launched again about six months later, the AI getting stuck was still the limiting factor. People wanted to build real applications. Producing code that looked convincing was only part of that job.
By the third launch, the company had changed the system considerably. It had developed better ways to work with large codebases and invested in evaluations. Supabase integration added backend functionality that many applications required. The team rebranded, made tutorials, and improved the way it demonstrated what the product could do.
Model capabilities were advancing at the same time. That matters, although Lovable’s account doesn’t isolate the contribution of a particular model release from its engineering and distribution improvements.
Five weeks after the third launch, the company reported (opens in new tab) $5.3 million in annualized recurring revenue. By September 2026, TechCrunch reported (opens in new tab) a co-founder saying Lovable’s annualized revenue run rate exceeded $600 million. Neither figure is audited profit or proof of long-term customer retention. They show how different the commercial response became.
Lovable now evaluates the complete application-building process. Its August 2026 engineering account (opens in new tab) describes a control plane that adapts instructions, tools, and context for different models. The company has also trained specialized models of its own for recurring jobs.
Adding payments to an application sounds like a simple request. Making that change work can require finding the relevant code, modifying the data flow, testing the result, recovering from errors, and deciding when to involve another model or the customer.
A new foundation model can improve some of those steps. Turning the improvement into a dependable product remains the company’s responsibility, which creates an uncomfortable decision for founders. Launching early provides access to real customer problems and failures. Those failures also cost time, money, and trust. A startup could understand the eventual opportunity and exhaust its runway before the technology becomes dependable enough to serve it.
The model becoming capable doesn’t mean the product has become reliable.
Sometimes the stronger model breaks the old solution
In September 2025, Cognition had to rethink how Devin worked around a stronger Claude model. It rebuilt the coding agent for Sonnet 4.5. The company reported (opens in new tab) twice the speed and a 12 percent improvement on its internal junior-developer evaluations. It also explained why simply replacing the model wasn’t enough.
Sonnet 4.5 behaved differently from its predecessors. It appeared unusually aware of its context window and sometimes rushed to finish work when it believed it was running out of space, even when plenty remained. Cognition changed its prompting and experimented with giving the model the impression of a larger available window so it would stop taking those shortcuts.
Sonnet 4.5’s new capabilities exposed assumptions the existing agent hadn’t been designed to handle.
Gamma encountered the opposite problem. Its 2023 models often struggled to create readable presentations. The team made those models useful by restricting layout choices, controlling typography, and letting ordinary software determine where elements belonged.
By July 2026, Noronha said (opens in new tab) some of the same restrictions were holding stronger models back. Gamma was removing scaffolding that had been essential to its original generative experience.
Engineering that makes one generation of models dependable can limit the next generation.
Noronha described building components sturdy enough to serve enormous production usage even when the team expected to replace them in six to twelve months. The important distinction is between temporary scaffolding and the commitments customers depend on. Models may no longer need the same rigid layout rules. Customers still expect their work to be saved, their permissions respected, and their presentations to remain editable.
A good AI product needs both kinds of engineering judgment. It has to solve problems current models cannot handle, then recognize when those solutions have become obstacles.
That is why what customers can accomplish depends on the entire product. The model weights are one part of the result. Tools, context, verification, and recovery determine how much of that capability reaches the customer.
The upgrade doesn’t belong to you
Jasper had a substantial business selling AI-generated marketing copy before ChatGPT. Sacra estimated (opens in new tab) its annual recurring revenue at roughly $72 million in November 2022. GPT-3 could produce useful copy, and Jasper had packaged that capability into something marketers would pay for.
ChatGPT launched later that month and made general-purpose AI writing easier to access. In a March 2024 market analysis (opens in new tab), Sacra described pressure on Jasper and Copy.ai’s prosumer subscriptions as customers gained cheaper alternatives. Those are analyst estimates, not a directly observed study of individual customer switching.
Meanwhile, GPT-4 made more complicated marketing work possible. Jasper moved toward enterprise workflows combining company context, brand rules, connected systems, and marketing execution. By October 2024, the company reported (opens in new tab) more than 850 enterprise customers and had introduced over 80 marketing AI applications.
Model progress expanded the range of work Jasper could serve. It also reduced the scarcity of the writing capability that initially made the company valuable.
I’ve seen what happens when an early lead erodes. At KISSmetrics, we were ahead of the market in identity-based analytics. In My Billion Dollar Mistake (opens in new tab), I described how our execution slowed while competitors improved and eventually closed the gap we’d established.
The technology was different, but the competitive lesson travels. Being early gives you time. It doesn’t give you a permanent claim on the market.
With foundation models, pressure can arrive from the model provider as well as other application companies. A new capability may make an early company’s original promise feasible while making a comparable product easier for a competitor to offer.
You can be right about the future of a product and still lose the business it creates.
The promise changes after the models catch up
By October 2026, AI-generated presentations were becoming commonplace. The first draft that once felt extraordinary was something users could expect from many tools.
Gamma rebuilt again (opens in new tab), with Gamma 5 placing more emphasis on brand-specific design, freeform editing, and helping someone develop the story before creating the presentation. It added ways to bring existing work directly into the process.
The customer problem was still recognizable. People wanted to communicate an idea without wasting time on presentation mechanics. Once software could generate the initial deck, the remaining frustration became more visible. A presentation might be easy to create yet still look generic, express the wrong idea, or require too much work to make it feel like yours.
Lovable has been broadening its scope too, from generating an application toward deployment and operating software people actually use. As the first version becomes easier to produce, customers discover how much work begins afterward.
Technology removes one expensive part of a job. What remains becomes the next product opportunity.
The company that made the first part possible may be well positioned to take on the next one. It may also have to compete with businesses that already own the surrounding workflow.
What should a founder do before the models are ready?
If the promised outcome depends on future model improvements, start with the work customers can finish today. A useful partial solution creates real feedback. You can observe where people get stuck, which results they accept, how much repair is required, and whether anyone returns to do the same job again. A product that only demonstrates what might be possible generates excitement, but much less evidence about what people will pay to accomplish.
Track failures at the level of complete customer tasks. Model versions matter, along with the tools, data, instructions, tests, and human interventions needed to finish the work. That history becomes a reusable evaluation set each time a new model appears.
Then consider what the business will still offer when a competitor can buy access to the same model. Customer context, trusted integrations, distribution, workflow knowledge, and reliable verification may help. Each must be earned through use, rather than assumed because you launched first.
There is no universal rule for how many months ahead of the frontier to build. A rough presentation draft can be useful at a reliability level unacceptable for financial transactions or production authentication. Cost and recovery also determine whether something is a product people can depend on.
I hunted Gamma’s launch that won every Product Hunt award that month. The later launch finished seventh and did far more for the person facing a blank presentation.
That difference is worth remembering when another AI startup promises a future its current models can’t quite deliver. The technology may eventually fulfill the promise. By then, customers will expect more, and competitors will have access to many of the same advances.
The question is whether the company has spent that time learning how to finish the customer’s job.
- Gamma’s August 2022 Product Hunt launch won Product of the Day, Week, and Month, but co-founder Jon Noronha later estimated that only about 5–10% of signups reached value. Interviews with 100 people exposed blank-page and formatting frustrations, while the original editor still left customers to create most content and structure the story. After a three-month rebuild around generative AI, users could describe an idea and receive a first draft; the relaunch ranked seventh, but the comparison is not controlled because the product, onboarding, and infrastructure also changed.
- AI product reliability depends on the whole customer task, not a compelling demo: in an illustrative example, five independent steps each succeeding 80% of the time yield about 33% end-to-end success, versus about 77% at 95%; the article cautions this is not a real-product reliability prediction. Product teams must make model capability dependable through context, tools, verification, recovery, and viable cost.
- Product scaffolding must evolve with models: Cognition changed its prompting after Sonnet 4.5 exposed assumptions in its agent, while Gamma found that restrictions useful for weaker models were holding stronger ones back. Keep customer commitments such as saved work, permissions, and editability dependable even as temporary technical constraints change.
- Before models are ready, ship useful work customers can complete; observe where they get stuck, which results they accept, repair effort, and whether they return. Track failures across complete tasks—including models, tools, data, tests, and human intervention—to build reusable evaluations. Shah says KISSmetrics was three years ahead but his shifting priorities let that lead disappear; model access likewise does not secure a lasting advantage, so customer context, integrations, distribution, and workflow knowledge must be earned through use.
- Gamma interviewed 100 people before building; they described blank-page starts, time lost formatting slides, and fear that a poor presentation would make them seem less capable. Its first browser-native editor made arranging and sharing easier, but still left users to create most of the material and structure the story . Noronha later estimated that only about 5–10% of initial signups reached value; the GPT-4 relaunch let users describe an idea and react to a generated draft, though the article cautions that its outcome cannot be attributed to one change because the product, onboarding, and infrastructure also changed .
- Treat a compelling AI demo as distinct from a dependable product: a customer task can require several successful steps, and the article’s illustrative example puts five independent steps with 80% success each at about 33% end-to-end success. The product must make model capability dependable through context, tools, verification, recovery, and affordable delivery; the calculation is illustrative, not a prediction for a real product .
- Revisit model-dependent engineering as capabilities change: Gamma found restrictions that helped earlier models generate readable presentations were holding stronger models back. Separate temporary scaffolding from durable customer commitments such as saved work, permissions, and editable presentations .
- When an automated first output becomes commonplace, look for the next unresolved customer need: Gamma shifted toward brand-specific design, editing, and story development, while Lovable broadened from generating applications toward deploying and operating them .
- If the full promised outcome depends on future models, begin with work customers can finish today; observe where they get stuck, what they accept, how much repair is needed, and whether they return. Track failures across complete tasks—including models, tools, data, tests, and human intervention—as reusable evaluations, and earn differentiation through customer context, integrations, distribution, workflow knowledge, and verification . Reliability, cost, and recovery requirements should also reflect the task’s stakes .