19 Comments

Thoroughly enjoyed reading it! The problem with not adopting AI in core capability is if we don’t do it competitors will. So there is no way to stop it.

Expand full comment

Point is that it becomes an expected utility function - a checkbox - and not a strategic differentiator.

Expand full comment

Precisely!

Expand full comment

Gotcha. So when AI improvement affects your core competency, your moat is eroded. Hence, it's prudent to build a business that cannot be disrupted but instead improved via AI improvements that are coming.

Expand full comment

In Wardley Map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardley_map) parlance, it’s to your advantage that you tailor some exposed part of your customer offerings to the left, “boutique” side of the map to differentiate yourself.

If you hitch that to commodity AI services, the lower end (more hidden) of your value chain gets pulled to the right and gets gobbled up by a ubiquitous utility/commodity service, opening you up to a lot more competitors. And more of your value gets eaten up by the utility.

Expand full comment

It is quite ironic in a way that right now the big 4 are making the most amount of money in Gen AI, how long they can continue with that model or hold into the promise of how Gen AI will help their client in the near future.

I guess we need to see for another one or two years to see whether they can spin in a different way

Expand full comment

That's when things shake out. We saw that with adoption of cloud as well. Tech soon becomes tables takes

Expand full comment

Do you believe that they have think of this particular situation are going to happen to them in the near future? How near is depend on the speed at which AI will develop and I think it’s really fast

Do they have any plan or they just go with the flow similar to which they make money during the adoption of cloud?

Expand full comment

There is no question that the productivity gains are worth the cost. I have been experimenting with subscriptions on Perplexity, CoPilot, OpenAi and Claude and doing ad hoc comparisons of the results. Mostly, I am using them for efficiency in recurring tasks, data table cleaning, chart analysis. I have not settled on one yet and will keep testing until I narrow it down.

Salvatore Tirabassi

Fractional CFO Services @ CFO Pro+Analytics

Expand full comment

Im making over 13k BUCKS a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do....quicksrich.blogspot.com

Expand full comment

Great article. I see this happening in healthcare. Startups are increasingly focused on conducting tests, deploying AI chatbots, and leveraging data to generate insights. While it's now "possible" and "cool" to offer tech-driven health insights, the true winners will be those who combine deep, proprietary expertise in healthcare—making it their core product—with the strategic use of tech and AI to enhance personalization and scale.

Expand full comment

Important point: ChatGPT didn’t change price of their existing subscription, they’ve added another one on top of Plus.

Expand full comment

I think that was a forward looking move to capture value on upcoming improved capabilities. I find it odd that it’s the consumer pricing that was increased. But maybe there is a corresponding API or enterprise price increase

Expand full comment

Gilettes' razor - razor blade strategy will forever stand out as bargaining power through control of complement. Printers - printing cartridge, and even coffee makers - coffee pods help expanding the list. AIs' subscription model (razor) bargaining power may be neutralized by creating complementary Small Language Model (razor blade) for both productivity and economy of scale.

Expand full comment

That's one way of looking at it. But complements aren't just consumer-facing products, they can also be complementary capabilities (e.g. customer support vs core product as in Klarna) or complementary points in the customer journey (e.g. monetizing product purchase vs monetizing product usage).

Expand full comment

Good points for the long term, but short term, early adopters who realise those productivity gains get super normal profits. That is the product you provide can be produced for less, but before there has been downward pressure on prices. (Because your competitor has not yet made the same productivity gains) So there absolutely IS value in making efficiencies, as long as you are one of the first movers.

Expand full comment

Yes, for a certain period. And that's what everyone is excited about. My point doesn't negate that. It just says that if you're focused only on that, you get screwed in the long term.

Expand full comment

Got you. However isnt the long term reward that you simply continue to exist? Auto makers that didnt embrace automation for example would have been out performed by those that did.

I think this is spot on:

"It’s still possible to enhance profits and secure a stronger competitive advantage with generative AI in your core product- but only if you leverage it to build a proprietary product advantage within your business. The key is ensuring that this advantage is developed internally, rather than relying on a third-party supplier of AI."

Lots of companies are going to be subscribing to ChatGPT for teams or Co-pilot 365 because they think that will mean they have an "AI strategy" the reality is that AI an exercise in organisational change vs something you can buy off the shelf.

Expand full comment

You need to embrace tech to have a chance to stay in the game. But you need to adopt one of the 3 strategies to actually win the game. I am not saying that you should not do the first one.

Expand full comment