Moats, before and after
Ten sources of competitive advantage, scored before and after intelligence got cheap. The ones in blue are draining.
features → basically zero now
trying to answer →What is a moat in an AI world?Which parts of an AI startup are actually defensible?
This is a judgement drawn to scale, not a measurement. Each moat is scored from 0 to 10 for how much protection it gave a software company before capable models were cheap, and how much it gives now. Slide from before to after and watch them re-rank; anything that falls by two points or more is drawn in blue.
- 6Features & functionality6.0
- 2Technical know-how8.0
- 3Switching costs7.0
- 4Workflow lock-in7.0
- 7Scale economies6.0
- 10Regulatory licences5.0
- 1Network effects8.0
- 9Proprietary data5.0
- 5Distribution6.0
- 8Brand & trust5.0
where it stood before draining by two points or more
Reading it
The pattern is simple once it’s drawn. The moats that fell are the ones built on making software being hard: features, technical know-how, and some of the switching costs that came from painful migrations a model can now do in an afternoon.
The moats that held or rose were never about software. Network effects, distribution, and brand and trust sit next to intelligence, not inside it. If cheap intelligence makes products converge, the things that differ between companies are exactly these.
The most contested line is proprietary data. I’ve drawn it rising, but only for data that compounds with use. A static dataset is a head start. A feedback loop is a moat.