Established SaaS firms avoid AI-native products because they operate at lower gross margins (e.g., 40%) compared to traditional software (80%+). This parallels brick-and-mortar retail's fatal hesitation with e-commerce, creating an opportunity for AI-native startups to capture the market by embracing different unit economics.

Related Insights

A market bifurcation is underway where investors prioritize AI startups with extreme growth rates over traditional SaaS companies. This creates a "changing of the guard," forcing established SaaS players to adopt AI aggressively or risk being devalued as legacy assets, while AI-native firms command premium valuations.

Incumbent companies are slowed by the need to retrofit AI into existing processes and tribal knowledge. AI-native startups, however, can build their entire operational model around agent-based, prompt-driven workflows from day one, creating a structural advantage that is difficult for larger companies to copy.

For established software companies with sluggish growth, the path forward is clear: find a way to become relevant in the age of AI. While they may not become the next Harvey, attaching to AI spend can boost growth from 15% to 25%, the difference between a viable public company and a sale to a private equity firm.

For incumbent software companies, an existing customer base is a double-edged sword. While it provides a distribution channel for new AI products, it also acts as "cement shoes." The technical debt and feature obligations to thousands of pre-AI customers can consume all engineering resources, preventing them from competing effectively with nimble, AI-native startups.

AI is making core software functionality nearly free, creating an existential crisis for traditional SaaS companies. The old model of 90%+ gross margins is disappearing. The future will be dominated by a few large AI players with lower margins, alongside a strategic shift towards monetizing high-value services.

Unlike SaaS, where high gross margins are key, an AI company with very high margins likely isn't seeing significant use of its core AI features. Low margins signal that customers are actively using compute-intensive products, a positive early indicator.

Many AI startups prioritize growth, leading to unsustainable gross margins (below 15%) due to high compute costs. This is a ticking time bomb. Eventually, these companies must undertake a costly, time-consuming re-architecture to optimize for cost and build a viable business.

Traditional SaaS metrics like 80%+ gross margins are misleading for AI companies. High inference costs lower margins, but if the absolute gross profit per customer is multiples higher than a SaaS equivalent, it's a superior business. The focus should shift from margin percentages to absolute gross profit dollars and multiples.

In a world where AI makes software cheap or free, the primary value shifts to specialized human expertise. Companies can monetize by using their software as a low-cost distribution channel to sell high-margin, high-ticket services that customers cannot easily replicate, like specialized security analysis.

The push for AI-driven efficiency means many companies are past 'peak employee.' This creates a scenario analogous to a country with a declining population, where the total number of available seats is in permanent decline, making per-seat pricing a fundamentally flawed long-term business model.