Thanks for linking. I agree and strongly believe product companies are in the best position to monetize Gen AI. Existing distribution channels + companies being extremely fast to add AI features.

Where start-ups like Stability need to be rising to compete will have to be AI-native e.g. products re-thought of from the ground up like an AI image editor or as foundation-level AI research companies, agents or AI infrastructure companies.

There's no reason Stability can't play in both B2B and API if planned and strategized well and OpenAI can definitely pull it off with their tech and talent. But Stability has a few important differentiators from OpenAI where I believe if they launch an AI-native product in the multimodal space, they stand to differentiate significantly: - People join because they believed in Emad's vision of open source so it is their job to figure out a commercial model for open source. They can retain AI talent by ensuring a commitment to open source here. If they need to ensure their moat is retained and can commercialize, they should delay releasing model weights until a product surrounding the weights has been released first. Still open source and open weights but give them time to figure out a commercial strategy to capitalize their research. However because of this promise, they will not be able to license their technology to other companies. - Stability's strong research DNA (unsure about their engineering) is so badly fumbled by a lack of a cohesive product strategy that it leads to sub-par product releases. In agreement to the 3 'layers' argument, that's exactly Stability's greatest strength and weakness. Their focus on foundational models is incredibly strong and has come at the cost of the interface layer (and ultimately the data layer as it has a flywheel effect).

The company currently screams a need for effective leadership that can add on interface and data layers to their product strategy so they can build a strong moat outside of a strong research team which has shown it can disappear at any moment...

> Not only Adobe perhaps knows better than anyone else what is need and workflow of a moviemaker

I only ever heard creatives complain about Adobe and their UI/UX and how they don’t understand their customers.

Never really used any of their products myself though. Maybe they still are best-in-class. I can’t tell.

Many years ago it was a good offering but it’s becoming increasingly clear with outsourcing and talent drain that the current teams working on the likes of Photoshop, After Effects and Premier do not actually understand how the core tool, both in its inner workings or even how it draws its own UI works at all and couldn’t either recreate it or even change its existing behavior.

Every major change in the last 6 years has either been weird window dressing changes to welcome panels or new document panels, in all cases building sluggish jank heavy interfaces, try navigating to a folder in the premier one and weep as clicks take actual seconds to recognize.

Or just silly floating tooltips like the ones in Photoshop that also take a second to visible draw in.

All tangible tool changes exist outside the interface or you jump to a web interface in a window and back with the results being passed between in a way that makes it very obvious the developers are trying to avoid touching the core tools code.

Very clear Narayens outsourcing and not being a product guy has lead to this

It's been like this since at least late 90s. At this point Photoshop is similar to Windows in that it has at least 6 mismatching UIs from 6 different eras in it. (or maybe more)

> I only ever heard creatives complain about Adobe and their UI/UX and how they don’t understand their customers.

There are tools no one uses, and there are tools people constantly complain about.

Figma is an example of a widely used tool most users seem to like and praise.

Have been building a generative video editor and doing interviews with enterprise creative cloud users. Basically there’s a large knowledge investment in their tools, and adobe (so far) has shown that their user’s knowledge investment won’t become useless because adobe will continue to incorporate the future into their existing knowledge stack. Adobe doesn’t have to be the best, but just show they won’t miss the boat entirely with this next generation of tools.

I don't know Adobe's business so could be wrong, but maybe "creatives" are not their key customers? If they're focusing on enterprise sales, they're selling to enterprise decision makers.

Every user hates using microsoft products, and don't get me started on SAP. But these are gigantic companies with wildly successful products aimed at enterprise customers.

> Every user hates using microsoft products

Only because they've never had a chance to experience the competition.

Having worked in IBM and had to use the Lotus Office Suite I can tell you Microsoft won fair and square. And I'm not even talking about the detestable abomination that is Lotus Notes.

This comment distracted me as I tried to recall a product I saw my mother using when I was younger. I fell asleep after I found it and never got back here until just now: Microsoft Works

This one was so obscure to find because it seems to exist in a weird space of being Microsoft Office but not.

If they’re selling to enterprise decision makers, aren’t they also B2B? In which case they have the same deficiency they started OpenAI has.

I work with Adobe products everyday. They are mostly trash, at least in the video arena. People use them but they are painful to use. Premiere is known for poor stability, After Effects has just started being updated again after maybe 10+ years of nothing useful being added. Some parts of After Effects are clearly bolted on, and incompatible with each other.

They’re terrible products for the most part. But they buy the competition (Substance) or they develop some half baked substitute (Adobe XD) that people might use since it comes with the subscription.

Sure there maybe scope of improvement in the products, but the point is they have $Billions in sale (year on year) to those customers (Ad agencies, movie studios etc.).

People love illustrator

It was good in the 00s but now it’s rickety and antiquated and the GPU acceleration was never implemented correctly.

Figma could build an illustrator killer in 6 months if they wanted to and it would be obliterated.

If they actually tackled this task people would be kicking themselves for putting up with the shambles that is illustrator for this long.

> Figma could build an illustrator killer in 6 months if they wanted to and it would be obliterated

Statements like this are almost always wrong, if for no other reason that a technically superior alternative is rarely compelling enough by itself. It that weren’t the case you would see it happen far more often…

Well that wasn’t true when Figma just completely replaced Sketch. The sharing features and realtime multiuser interface is worth a lot to people.

That’s a different scenario: could a system be built to eat X’s lunch.

The scenario I was calling out is more: Company A is great at X, so clearly that technology could be used to easily be great at Y, and doom company B in 6 months. The problem with that thinking is that often the technology is the easy part (and sometimes superficial similarity, also).

People also hate illustrator

Only because Adobe forced them to by murdering Freehand in front of their eyes.

People don't want to buy a third of an inch drill, they want a third of an inch hole.