I loathe to say this, but it might not be good for the economy because it fails to take into consideration division of labour.
A 'niche product' is usually be more economically better provided by a slightly more generic product, or a 'product feature' at by BigCo or SME.
Of course there are always going to be 'hyper niches' with very, specific and applied technology, but I don't feel this is the case.
I think most of these micro saas just have customers that 'like them' and 'pay a certain amount' 'because' and not really fully taking into consideration the added complexity, cost, overhead, resiliency.
In China, they have hugely complex manufacturing supply chains - yes - you need the little 'mom and pop shops' to provide that hyper niche component - but with generic SaaS it's not the case really.
All of that said, the theory falters a bit when you have A) Big Corps and SMEs that languish and fail to provide features, or have monopoly pricing power (though the later is not usually the case, usually the price is near $0) and B) Surpluses are not shared aka if we all used BigCo and SME SaaS, they'd 'keep' all the surpluses and so everyone else is resigned to working at Starbucks. The $1M SaaS is basically a way to leverage power extract some surplus at the cost of overall efficiency.
I don't know what the answer is, but it's worth contemplating what this means structurally. At least it's not completely vapid 'Social Influencing' and scammy value destroying Crypto/NFTs.
This is a perfect example of a different sort of analysis paralysis.
Forget the economy. If you want to build something, build it. Worry about your impact on the economy when you're worth a few billion $$$. IOW - you'll never have to worry about it.
If I got this right, you’re suggesting that bigger companies can cannibalize all of the sales for smaller cos and there’s no reason for a micro SaaS to exist?
If that’s the case what type of company is worth considering for someone like with a poor background like myself to escape the rat race?
I'm not saying they 'should' rather, it's likely more efficient in most cases.
For 'individual contributors' the best thing is likely 'highly skilled things' that cannot be scaled via automation, best example Doctor or Dentist.
Or businesses that are inherently local i.e. contractor/construction.
There should theoretically be 'space' a the long tail for niche providers of goods as well (i.e. Shopify Store) but for SaaS it's a bit doubtful.
Also, theoretically, the efficiency in tech should roll into higher tax revenue and public services ... but that's not likely the case sadly.
In reality, there might be plenty of room for overlapping, small time SaaS makers to exist, even though there might be a ton of duplication and inefficiency in the market.
R.E the Shopify example, would building a Shopify App Store app not be viable or would it just be inevitable for a bigger software org to copy what you’re doing and sell.
When I say 'Shopify Store' I mean for a niche provider of some physical good.
Imagine there is 'no market' for a specific kind of custom bike pedal maker for any individual city. Too small. But across North America - well - maybe there is enough of a market. Shopify enables little long tail retailers that may not exist otherwise, that can legitimately creative value and do something the 'Big Cos' cannot.
As for 'selling software' I'm not sure how Shopify works for that, though I can vouch that they have a good website maker, I like it better than Wix.
Indie Hacker is a neat place, probably some very good advice for tooling and tricks to use at the micro scale, just understand there's probably a fair bit of BS going on there, and that it's definitely oriented towards 'small time thinking'. Which is fine, but just be wary that's what it's about.
A 'niche product' is usually be more economically better provided by a slightly more generic product, or a 'product feature' at by BigCo or SME.
Of course there are always going to be 'hyper niches' with very, specific and applied technology, but I don't feel this is the case.
I think most of these micro saas just have customers that 'like them' and 'pay a certain amount' 'because' and not really fully taking into consideration the added complexity, cost, overhead, resiliency.
In China, they have hugely complex manufacturing supply chains - yes - you need the little 'mom and pop shops' to provide that hyper niche component - but with generic SaaS it's not the case really.
All of that said, the theory falters a bit when you have A) Big Corps and SMEs that languish and fail to provide features, or have monopoly pricing power (though the later is not usually the case, usually the price is near $0) and B) Surpluses are not shared aka if we all used BigCo and SME SaaS, they'd 'keep' all the surpluses and so everyone else is resigned to working at Starbucks. The $1M SaaS is basically a way to leverage power extract some surplus at the cost of overall efficiency.
Again, legitimately hyper-niche solutions notwithstanding.
I don't know what the answer is, but it's worth contemplating what this means structurally. At least it's not completely vapid 'Social Influencing' and scammy value destroying Crypto/NFTs.