Ask HN: Could you create a competitor to your company at 10% of the cost?

Technically speaking? Sure, most of the companies I've worked at aren't exactly doing rocket science. Creating media websites and doing work for clients as a marketing company are things that have a very low barrier to entry.

The challenge is that in most of these cases, success is based on trust and long-term reputation building rather than pure technical skill. And doing a good job in either industry requires a lot more time, resources and effort than a single person may be able to provide.

So, while I could definitely spin up some very similar sites, creating the actual content at a level of quality that people would even bother to read would be a chore, as would finding an audience in general.

A toy-version MVP might be cheap. What happens when you need to deploy it, scale it, secure it, support it, upgrade it, market it, etc.

A large company is more than a single GitHub repo.

As a former JavaScript developer yes I could reduce costs by 99%, but it’s not what business wants. They want the able to hire/fire people and not train them, so there are your inefficiencies: a bunch of lower confidence people that need a lot of hand holding.

I think you're onto something. I started my own firm on a shoe-string compared to my boss' existing company and have been doing quite well. The hardest thing may be lead generation, but I poached a bunch of those too.

I AIed a new currency coin and am currently llmmaxxing an airline rooted around no assumption models.

Traditional moats have crumbled. New norms challenge established truths. What were barriers are now entry.

A phase shift across industry where entrepreneur becomes the incumbent. This time it is different. I say go for it!

Weirdly enough, no.

1) Pricing too low would actually discourage buyers. Half of the time someone says this, it's nonsense; customers prefer cheaper. But 10% is too low. Would you buy a Slack clone at $0.50/head or a $2/month TalkGPT?

2) A good amount of cost would be non-software. Hardware is becoming a larger portion of costs.

3) Software development isn't just writing code. Most of my day now is just writing notes to verify what AI is doing, i.e. actual engineering. AI has gotten so damn good that fixes are about 1-10 lines or so per ticket, but now the comments become longer than the code. You do save time, but now we're tackling Highest Priority bugs that have been around since 2023.

4) Parkinson's Law: work expands to fill the space. Your competitors also have the same tools. You'll see companies like Stripe drop from #1 to #4. The market share will be taken by new players willing to work 996 but using AI to cut it down to 40 hours/week.

Nope. 90% of my company’s employees are doing highly skilled work that requires interacting with other humans face to face with physical presence.

And turning our tech over to AI would undoubtedly be a disaster of security and compliance fails in a highly regulated industry — if it didn’t simply hit a complexity wall that it couldn’t spaghetti code its way through.

And that’s setting aside UX. We have in-depth conversations around twice a week to make decisions at the intersection of data needed for business logic, compliance constraints, and managing both of those while keeping UX “delightful”. I’m not convinced an LLM will ever be able to handle those with halfway decent judgement.

YMMV if your product is an issue tracker, CRM less complex than salesforce, or newsletter platform, etc.

My website is just text on a page, for the most part, but the text solves a problem really well, and requires a lot of infrastructure to surface important knowledge that isn't already on the internet.

So far most competitors just repeat what's already said, but without the careful writing and information architecture.

It's a bit like travel guides. Eventually they all parrot each other, except for that one local who makes the effort of discovering and curating new places.

No - it costs $0 already

Technically? Probably. But the 10% cost isn't where the battle is. It's the 90% trust and 'organizational gravity' that legacy companies hold. You can replicate the stack with AI agents in a weekend, but you can't replicate the compliance, the sales relationships, and the 'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM' safety net. AI has lowered the floor for entry, but it hasn't lowered the ceiling for enterprise trust.