AI products with a Product-Led Growth motion face a fundamental flaw in their unit economics. Customers expect predictable SaaS-like pricing (e.g., $20/month), but the company's costs are usage-based. This creates an inverse relationship where higher user engagement leads directly to lower or negative margins.

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.

While AI expands software's capabilities, vendors may not capture the value. Companies could use AI to build solutions in-house more cheaply. Furthermore, traditional "per-seat" pricing models are undermined when AI reduces the number of employees required, potentially shrinking revenue even as the software delivers more value.

Many AI coding agents are unprofitable because their business model is broken. They charge a fixed subscription fee but pay variable, per-token costs for model inference. This means their most engaged power users, who should be their best customers, are actually their biggest cost centers, leading to negative gross margins.

Building software traditionally required minimal capital. However, advanced AI development introduces high compute costs, with users reporting spending hundreds on a single project. This trend could re-erect financial barriers to entry in software, making it a capital-intensive endeavor similar to hardware.

Unlike traditional SaaS, achieving product-market fit in AI is not enough for survival. The high and variable costs of model inference mean that as usage grows, companies can scale directly into unprofitability. This makes developing cost-efficient infrastructure a critical moat and survival strategy, not just an optimization.

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.

The dominant per-user-per-month SaaS business model is becoming obsolete for AI-native companies. The new standard is consumption or outcome-based pricing. Customers will pay for the specific task an AI completes or the value it generates, not for a seat license, fundamentally changing how software is sold.

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.