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.

For a true AI-native product, extremely high margins might indicate it isn't using enough AI, as inference has real costs. Founders should price for adoption, believing model costs will fall, and plan to build strong margins later through sophisticated, usage-based pricing tiers rather than optimizing prematurely.

The compute-heavy nature of AI makes traditional 80%+ SaaS gross margins impossible. Companies should embrace lower margins as proof of user adoption and value delivery. This strategy mirrors the successful on-premise to cloud transition, which ultimately drove massive growth for companies like Microsoft.

Unlike the slow denial of SaaS by client-server companies, today's SaaS leaders (e.g., HubSpot, Notion) are rapidly integrating AI. They have an advantage due to vast proprietary data and existing distribution channels, making it harder for new AI-native startups to displace them. The old playbook of a slow incumbent may no longer apply.

Traditional SaaS companies are trapped by their per-seat pricing model. Their own AI agents, if successful, would reduce the number of human seats needed, cannibalizing their core revenue. AI-native startups exploit this by using value-based pricing (e.g., tasks completed), aligning their success with customer automation goals.

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.

Counterintuitively, very high gross margins in a company pitching itself as "AI" can be a warning sign. It may indicate that users aren't engaging with the core, computationally expensive AI features. Lower margins can signal genuine, heavy usage of the core AI product.

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.

Contrary to traditional software evaluation, Andreessen Horowitz now questions AI companies that present high, SaaS-like gross margins. This often indicates a critical flaw: customers are not engaging with the costly, core AI features. Low margins, in this context, can be a positive signal of genuine product usage and value delivery.