Rosa Del Mar

Issue 24 2026-01-24

Rosa Del Mar

Daily Brief

Issue 24 2026-01-24

Ideation And Problem-Framing As Adoption Bottlenecks

Issue 24 Edition 2026-01-24 4 min read
General
Sources: 1 • Confidence: Medium • Updated: 2026-02-06 16:59

Key takeaways

  • A key barrier to most people building software is that many real-world problems are not perceived as software-shaped and therefore do not trigger software solutions.
  • Programmers are trained to interpret repeated tasks as candidates for automation, making them more likely than non-programmers to notice software-shaped solutions.
  • When non-programmers are told they can instantly create any app, they may respond positively but still fail to build anything because they cannot think of an idea.
  • Even when an everyday task is automatable, non-programmers may default to manual workflows while programmers use scripts and command-line tools to automate it.

Sections

Ideation And Problem-Framing As Adoption Bottlenecks

The deltas argue that ease of building is not sufficient for non-programmers because they may not generate app ideas and may not perceive daily problems as software-shaped. The implied change is shifting the bottleneck from implementation to recognizing and articulating automatable opportunities.

  • A key barrier to most people building software is that many real-world problems are not perceived as software-shaped and therefore do not trigger software solutions.
  • When non-programmers are told they can instantly create any app, they may respond positively but still fail to build anything because they cannot think of an idea.

Automation Instinct Gap Between Programmers And Non-Programmers

The deltas propose that programmers have a trained cognitive pattern to notice repetition and automate, and that this manifests behaviorally as scripting/CLI usage versus manual workflows. The implied change is that adoption gaps can persist even when automation is feasible, due to differences in learned recognition and tooling comfort.

  • Programmers are trained to interpret repeated tasks as candidates for automation, making them more likely than non-programmers to notice software-shaped solutions.
  • Even when an everyday task is automatable, non-programmers may default to manual workflows while programmers use scripts and command-line tools to automate it.

Unknowns

  • What fraction of non-programmers with access to instant app-building tools fail to create anything, and what are the dominant stated reasons (no idea vs tool friction vs low value)?
  • How often do non-programmers encounter automatable repeated tasks, and how often do they recognize them as automatable before any intervention?
  • How large is the measured gap between programmers and non-programmers in identifying automation opportunities on the same task set, and what training or examples close it (if any)?
  • Which interventions (templates, examples, guided agents, or reframing prompts) measurably increase completion from intent to a working automation/app among non-programmers?
  • Is there any direct operator/product/investor decision read-through in the corpus (e.g., concrete roadmap choices, pricing, deployment constraints), or is it purely conceptual?

Investor overlay

Read-throughs

  • No code and instant app building products may face an ideation bottleneck where build speed does not translate into created apps because many users do not perceive problems as software shaped.
  • Adoption gaps may be driven by a recognition and framing skill gap between programmers and non programmers, so products that teach or prompt automation thinking could convert more intent into working automations.
  • Templates, examples, and guided agents may be higher leverage than adding more implementation features if they help users identify repeated tasks and translate them into automations.

What would confirm

  • Usage data shows many non programmer accounts express intent but do not ship a first automation, with surveys citing lack of ideas or inability to frame a problem more than tool friction.
  • Controlled tests show non programmers identify fewer automation opportunities than programmers on the same task set, and exposure to examples or prompts measurably narrows the gap.
  • Product experiments show templates, guided flows, or reframing prompts increase first app completion and retention more than improvements to build speed or raw capability.

What would kill

  • Most non programmer non creation is explained by tool friction, setup, deployment, or reliability issues rather than ideation or framing, and reducing friction eliminates the gap.
  • When given instant app building tools, a large share of non programmers quickly find ideas and build useful automations without guidance, implying ideation is not the bottleneck.
  • Interventions like templates and guided agents do not improve completion or retention, suggesting recognition and framing are not a material driver of adoption.

Sources

  1. 2026-01-24 simonwillison.net