Original Title: Naval Ravikant: Apple is Dead, SaaS is Next, You Have 18 Months
Original Author: Mustufa Khan
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats

Editor’s Note: This article takes Naval Ravikant’s judgment in a podcast that “pure software is no longer worth investing in” as a starting point to discuss the revaluation of tech companies in the AI era. The core of the article is not just about criticizing Apple or SaaS, but pointing to a deeper change: in the future, what will truly be scarce is no longer the software itself, but distribution channels, network effects, proprietary data, hardware integration, brand communities, and vertical industry barriers. In other words, AI is making “writing software” cheaper, and is forcing entrepreneurs to re-examine a more fundamental question: what does your company have that AI cannot replicate?

This shift means a reassessment for both large corporations and startups. Apple’s risk lies in the possibility that if the interaction layer is taken over by AI agents, the long-term premium on software experience could be diminished; SaaS companies’ risk is that their functionalities are becoming less of a moat.

Meanwhile, the democratization of software production capabilities could also trigger a new wave of individual creators and small team companies. For homogeneous software, this is a dangerous era; for founders with distribution, taste, data, and industry depth, it could be an unprecedented opportunity window.

Below is the original text:

Apple is already dead, it’s just that the market hasn’t had time to complete the formalities.

This is not a sensationalist statement, but a structural summary of industry changes over the past six months. Naval Ravikant’s recent podcast comments almost confirm this. One of the most patient investors in the tech world, and one of the sharpest capital allocators over the past twenty years, has given a very clear conclusion about the entire software industry: pure software is no longer worth investing in.

For founders, the real question isn’t whether you agree with this judgment, but whether you still have 18 months to complete your transformation before the market fully reacts.

Background: Naval founded AngelList and was an early investor in Twitter, Uber, Notion, and about 200 other companies shaping the tech landscape over the past decade. He rarely makes quick judgments, but once he speaks, his words are often cited for years. It’s precisely because of this that when he says “pure software is no longer worth investing,” it’s not a casual comment, but a re-pricing of industry cycles by a capital allocator.

Here are his judgments and what they mean for all entrepreneurs.

No one can stop Apple from heading toward structural death

Apple won’t go bankrupt, nor will it disappear from your pocket next year. The collapse Naval refers to is not operational but economic.

The underlying pillar of Apple’s $3 trillion market cap is essentially one thing: supporting high-end hardware premiums with an excellent software experience. Once this experience advantage no longer holds, Apple will become a more refined Samsung. And this is happening.

The interaction layer is being commoditized. In the next 24 months, most people’s ways of opening apps will change: they will no longer actively enter each app, but will directly converse with AI agents, which will generate the required interfaces in real time. Once Apple’s carefully built app store, human-computer interaction standards, design aesthetics, and ecosystem moats can be replaced by AI generating interfaces on any device in real time, their original value will rapidly diminish.

What is Apple’s response to this transformation? Delegating to Google, introducing Gemini.

This means that the company which has always regarded “controlling the experience layer” as its core identity is outsourcing that experience layer to its strongest competitor. After losing the bet on developing its own AI, Apple is now patching internal strategic gaps with external models.

This is almost a replay of the “post-mobile era Microsoft” script.

Microsoft’s missed opportunity in the mobile era was not due to lack of resources, but because it was unwilling to rebuild a touch-native operating system from scratch. Its old dominance led it to believe the old paradigm would continue. By the time Microsoft truly accepted reality, Apple had won the next decade. Today, Microsoft remains a $3 trillion company, but Windows has lost the consumer war it could have won.

Apple is now making the same mistake in the AI wave: it still believes that its hardware-first DNA can carry it through the age of intelligent agents.

But this path is destined to be difficult. Once operating systems and interfaces are commoditized, Apple’s profit margins will be squeezed to hardware levels. And hardware premiums, which are the core profit source supporting Apple’s entire empire, will be under threat. Structural revenue and valuation reappraisals will be hard to avoid.

Of course, you can continue holding Apple stock, but don’t treat it as a growth stock anymore. This historically most valuable hardware company will soon face a brutal question: without a software moat, how much is its hardware really worth?

If your moat is software, you only have 18 months

For founders, this is the more difficult part to accept.

Naval’s statement “pure software is no longer worth investing in” is correct in itself. But he didn’t elaborate on what most SaaS companies that raised funds at Series A and Series B valuations will face next.

The answer is: most of them are already dead, they just don’t realize it yet.

The logic is simple. Your SaaS company exists because it was difficult to build that product in the past. You could raise money because technical execution required a full team. Your moat—whether you admit it or not—fundamentally comes from the difficulty of copying what you built.

And that difficulty is collapsing.

Today, a two-person team using Claude Code can replicate 80% of the core features of most B2B SaaS products within 90 days. Not a toy version, but a usable product with a reasonable architecture, basic security, and room for expansion. The remaining 20%—specific integrations, enterprise sales systems, compliance processes—still exist. But those are friction costs, not moats. And with next-generation agents iterating quarterly, these friction costs will continue to be compressed.

Similar changes are already happening. Adobe’s $20 billion acquisition of Figma in 2022 was because Figma was considered a structurally hard-to-copy product. But now, design tools with 70% of Figma’s core features are being independently developed by creators within months.

Salesforce, one of the most valuable SaaS companies ever, is being eroded by AI-native CRMs that didn’t exist 18 months ago. Companies like Workday, ServiceNow, Atlassian, Asana—each is becoming a potential target for AI-native replacements, and their replacement teams are often smaller than their HR departments.

In this transformation, the companies that survive won’t be those that write the best software. Because the value of software itself is approaching zero.

What will truly survive are those companies that build things AI cannot directly copy: distribution channels, network effects, data flywheels, hardware integration, brands, communities, and regulatory barriers. These are the only durable defenses left in the new era.

If your honest answer to “What is our moat?” is “Our product is better,” then you probably only have 18 months to find a real moat. Otherwise, you may see your valuation evaporate by 70% to 90% in the next funding round.

Founders who survive this transformation are those who take these signals seriously today. Those who dismiss them as noise will likely write a layoff letter in 2027, puzzled about why everything changed so fast.

The question is: which one are you?

Winning companies in the next decade won’t rely on software itself

If pure software is no longer worth investing in, then what is?

Naval offers a direction in his podcast: hardware, AI models, and network-effect businesses. To expand further, founders should consider these types of moats.

First, distribution channels.

Today’s truly successful companies are not necessarily the ones with the best products, but those with the most direct relationships with customers. The product is just a vehicle to serve customers; the audience is the moat. Your email list, communities, reputation, and distribution networks are assets.

If you still think “marketing” is only a phase after product-market fit, you’re already behind. In the future, marketing itself will be part of the product; the product is the downstream of traffic and relationships.

Second, network effects.

Businesses that can resist AI commoditization are those whose value comes from users themselves, not just features. Discord, Roblox, LinkedIn, Reddit are hard to copy not because their software engineering is complex, but because users are locked in by other users.

Does your product become more valuable as users grow? If yes, you have sustainability. If 100 users and 100k users bring no fundamental difference in product value, you’re in danger. AI can copy features but cannot replicate a thriving community.

Third, data flywheels.

Companies that can accumulate proprietary data through user interactions and use that data to train better models, forming feedback loops, have long-term value. Tesla’s autonomous driving data, Bloomberg Terminal data—these are essentially compound interest in value.

But if your product is just a UI layered on a public API, you don’t own real assets. Every user interaction that doesn’t generate data that competitors can’t access makes it hard to build long-term barriers.

Fourth, hardware integration.

Companies that control the physical layer have the longest defense cycles. Tesla, Anduril, SpaceX, Apple’s chip business, Boston Dynamics—these are typical examples. Hardware is hard; supply chains are hard; manufacturing is hard; the physical world’s complexity is hard for AI to directly overcome.

AI will not automatically produce chips, batteries, rockets, or robots. The physical world remains one of the most difficult moats to replicate quickly in the entire economy.

Fifth, vertical depth.

Horizontal SaaS giants face the greatest risk; deeply industry-specific vertical platforms are safer. General project management tools are increasingly risky, but if you’re deeply embedded in construction—understanding approval processes, inspection networks, regulatory data, and industry relationships—that’s a different story.

In the future, it’s better to go deep in one industry than to do shallow tools across ten industries.

If you are currently restructuring your strategy, the core question is: within the next 12 months, what kind of real moat can you build? Not someday, but now.

Those who lead the transformation will capture the survivor’s market after others fall.

The other side of collapse is the greatest entrepreneurial opportunity in history

This is also what many founders overlook when they hear “software is dead.” They only see what is being destroyed, not the opportunities being opened.

Naval’s most optimistic view in the podcast is that software is entering a renaissance for individual creators. This is not the death of software, but the democratization of software production.

History has precedents. Notch single-handedly developed Minecraft; Markus Frind built Plenty of Fish to $10 million annual profit alone; Instagram was acquired by Facebook for $1 billion with only 13 employees; WhatsApp exited for $19 billion with just 55 employees.

These companies prove one thing: a founder’s vision that isn’t diluted by organizational costs can directly reach product realization.

But in the past, they were more anomalies. Independent founders could create interesting things, but scaling was difficult. As companies grow, teams expand, compromises emerge, and visions get diluted. The unique essence that made the product special often disappears in committee-driven polishing.

What is truly changing now is the ceiling.

Naval describes a future where a one-person company can operate at the speed of a 50-person team. Users report bugs within apps, AI agents review and write fixes every 24 hours, submit pull requests, run tests; founders only need to review, approve, and deploy. Customer support is handled by AI, which can also write code to fix underlying issues. Users vote on feature requests, AI builds them, and founders oversee quality.

No coordination costs, no internal politics, no diluted visions, no engineers arguing over details, no designers debating icon placement, no product managers turning bold versions into safe ones.

The founder’s vision can go straight from mind to launch, with almost no organizational loss.

This is not just theory; it’s already happening locally. Pieter Levels, as an independent operator, has built multiple seven-figure revenue businesses. More independent developers are running companies that three years ago would have required Series A funding. AI-native independent operators are creating new outcomes that the venture capital industry has not yet fully priced.

The next unicorn might have only one employee. The next hundred-billion-dollar company might have fewer than ten.

If you are a creator, operator, marketer, or founder waiting for permission to enter, that permission has arrived. The technological bottlenecks are disappearing, and startup costs are collapsing. The only remaining barriers between you and a real company are three questions: Do you have something worth expressing? Do you have good judgment? Do you have the discipline to deliver consistently?

For those building homogeneous software, this is the worst era in history.

For those building sharp, distribution-ready, community-driven, data-rich, deep products, this is the best era in history.

Both are true. Which one applies to you depends on what you do in the next 18 months.

The window is open, but it won’t stay open forever

From here, founders generally have three paths.

First, dismiss it as noise.

Convince yourself that Apple is too big to fall, your SaaS is sufficiently unique, AI coding agents are overhyped, and everything will return to normal. Many peers will choose this path, and most will lose this cycle because of it.

Second, panic.

Shorten your runway suddenly, rush to lay off staff, hastily pivot. This is the cost of reacting too late. The ones truly destroyed by this transformation are not those who saw the change early, but those who only realized it 12 months late and had no funds, no time, no chips left to pivot in a panic.

Third, take this 18-month window seriously.

Honestly assess your moat, start building distribution channels before you really need them, find points of difference that AI cannot copy, and plan for the world to come instead of optimizing for the old one you want to preserve.

Naval’s tone is very restrained but clear: “Pure software is no longer worth investing in.”

This is not advice from someone hedging risks, but the final conclusion from someone who has spent twenty years judging what’s worth investing in and now believes most current investments are no longer justified.

Apple is entering structural death, most SaaS founders may be next. Those who survive will be those who act before everyone else realizes it.

The window is open, but it won’t stay open forever. The real question is: in the next 18 months, are you building a moat that can withstand the test of time, or are you letting your existing moat weather away?

Most won’t make it. A few will. The difference depends on what you start doing this quarter.

[Original Link]

Click to learn about Rhythm BlockBeats’ open positions

Join the official Rhythm BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Twitter Official Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia