---
title: "Where is all the new, good software?"
slug: where-is-all-the-new-good-software
url: https://listedarticles.com/articles/where-is-all-the-new-good-software
canonical_url: https://www.natemeyvis.com/where-is-all-the-new-good-software/
content_type: opinion
language: en
published_at: 2026-10-12T00:00:00.000Z
updated_at: 2026-10-13T11:12:11.567Z
author: "Nate Meyvis"
author_url: https://www.natemeyvis.com/
authored_by: human
publisher: "Nate Meyvis"
publisher_url: https://www.natemeyvis.com/
topics: ["Opinion", "AI", "Software Engineering", "Culture"]
license: all-rights-reserved
word_count: 511
reading_minutes: 2
citation: "Nate Meyvis, Nate Meyvis. \"Where is all the new, good software?.\" 12 Oct 2026. https://www.natemeyvis.com/where-is-all-the-new-good-software/ (all-rights-reserved)"
# The full text follows. The web page shows an extract and sends readers
# to the source above; quote the citation and link the canonical URL.
---

# Where is all the new, good software?

> Nate Meyvis lists candidate answers to the skeptic’s question—if AI coding is so powerful, why isn’t more great new software obvious—covering quieter quality gains, limited adoption, political bottlenecks, ephemeral and private tools, leisure capture, and AI sometimes reducing software use.

Here's a question we see, especially from AI skeptics: if AI coding is so great, shouldn't we be seeing more new, good software by now?

Here are some answers. As usual in this style of post, these are conjectural, candidate answers, and I would give some of them little weight.

1.   We _are_ in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
2.   We _are_ in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of more and better features in existing products.
3.   We _are_ in fact seeing software improvement, but the "we" is very limited. Most people don't adopt new software very often, so it's not surprising that they aren't finding new great software now.
4.   Many businesses' software-development processes have subsystems, especially political subsystems, that have not been accelerated with AI. (Imagine the process of getting senior engineers and product managers to sign off on a development plan. The engineers and PMs _could_ use AI to do this better and faster, but perhaps they aren't yet doing that.)
5.   AI is replacing more durable, longer-lasting software with more ephemeral forms of software or software use, and one might not easily perceive this as "better software via AI." (If you do your taxes with Claude and don't bother building or shopping for better tax-preparation software, you don't quite get the "this product is like TurboTax but wonderful" experience, however much you might benefit.[1](https://www.natemeyvis.com/where-is-all-the-new-good-software/#fn-1))
6.   AI is replacing broadly available software with private software. Domain experts are building their own tools; executives are making their own dashboards; companies have bespoke internal projects. So the software is out there, just not visible to the rest of us, and especially not visible to skeptics.
7.   We're making _more_ software instead of making software _better_. We've always had the choice of (roughly) improving what exists or pushing development forward, and we've often chosen the latter. It's not surprising that we're still doing a lot of the latter.
8.   Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
9.   AI improvements in software sometimes push us to use and make software _less_. Sometimes AI helps me figure out that a software project is a bad idea. Sometimes it nudges me to spend more analog time with humans. Sometimes it helps me find, and encourages me to read, more and better books. The net effect of this _for me_ still involves my spending _way_ more time making and using software, but it might be different for others. Most of the time, we're improving not just software but some system with both software and non-software components. If someone's Letterboxd (or similar) is working perfectly for them, they're likely to simply be a bit happier with their video-consumption life, potentially in ways that will crowd out their using other software.

Again, some of these are speculative and some should be given little weight.