Connect with us

Tech

SaaS in, SaaS out: Here’s what’s driving the SaaSpocalypse

One day not long ago, a founder texted his investor with an update: he was replacing his entire customer service team with Claude Code, an AI tool that can write and deploy software on its own. To Lex Zhao, an investor at One Way Ventures, the message indicated something bigger — the moment when companies like Salesforce stopped being the automatic default.

“The barriers to entry for creating software are so low now thanks to coding agents, that the build versus buy decision is shifting toward build in so many cases,” Zhao told TechCrunch. 

The build versus buy shift is only part of the problem. The whole idea of using AI agents instead of people to perform work throws into question the SaaS business model itself. SaaS companies currently price their software per seat — meaning by how many employees log in to use it. “SaaS has long been regarded as one of the most attractive business models due to its highly predictable recurring revenue, immense scalability, and 70-90% gross margins,” Abdul Abdirahman, an investor at the venture firm F-Prime, told TechCrunch.  

When one, or a handful, of AI agents can do that work — when employees simply ask their AI of choice to pull the data from the system — that per-seat model starts to break down.

The rapid pace of AI development also means that new tools, like Claude Code or OpenAI’s Codex, can replicate not just the core functions of SaaS products but also the add-on tools a SaaS vendor would sell to grow revenue from existing customers.

On top of that, customers now have the ultimate contract negotiation tool in their pockets: If they don’t like a SaaS vendor’s prices, they can, more easily than ever before, build their own alternative. “Even if they do not take the build route, this creates downward pressure on contracts that SaaS vendors can secure during renewals,” Abdirahman continued. 

We saw this as early as late 2024, when Klarna announced that it had ditched Salesforce’s flagship CRM product in favor of its own homegrown AI system. The realization that a growing number of other companies can do the same is spooking public markets, where the stock prices of SaaS giants like Salesforce and Workday have been sliding. In early February, an investor sell-off wiped nearly $1 trillion in market value from software and services stocks, followed by another billion later in the month.  

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Experts are calling it the SaaSpocalypse, with one analyst dubbing it FOBO investing — or fear of becoming obsolete.  

Yet the venture investors TechCrunch spoke with believe such fears are only temporary.  “This isn’t the death of SaaS,” Aaron Holiday, a managing partner at 645 Ventures, told TechCrunch. Rather, it’s the beginning of an old snake shedding its skin, he said. 

Move fast, break SaaS  

The public market pattern is best illustrated through Anthropic’s recent product launches. The company released Claude Code for cybersecurity, and related stocks dropped. It released legal tools in Claude Cowork AI, and the stock price of the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF  — a basket of publicly traded software companies that includes firms like LegalZoom and RELX — also dropped.  

In some ways, this was expected, as SaaS companies had long been overvalued, investors said. It also doesn’t help that these companies did the bulk of their growing during the zero-interest-rate era, which has since ended. The cost of doing business rises when the cost of borrowing money increases. 

Public market investors typically price SaaS companies by estimating future revenue. But there is no telling whether in one year or five years anyone will be using SaaS products to the extent they once did. That’s why every time a new advanced AI tool launches, SaaS stocks feel a tremor.  

“This may be the first time in history that the terminal value of software is being fundamentally questioned, materially reshaping how SaaS companies are underwritten going forward,” Abdirahman said. 

That’s because slapping AI features on top of existing SaaS products may not be enough. A horde of AI-native startups is rising at a record pace, having completely redefined what it means to be a software company. 

Software is now easier and cheaper to build, meaning it’s easier to replicate, Yoni Rechtman, a partner at Slow Ventures, told TechCrunch.  

That’s good news for the next generation of startups, but bad news for the incumbents that spent years building their tech stacks.  

On the other hand, the market also lacks enough time and evidence to show that whatever new business model emerges the SaaS’s wake will be worthwhile. AI companies are sometimes pricing their models based on consumption, meaning customers pay based on how much AI they use, measured in tokens (which each model provider defines slightly differently).  

Others are working on “outcome-based pricing,” where fees are charged based on how well the AI actually works. This, ironically, is the current approach of former Salesforce CEO Bret Taylor’s AI startup, Sierra, a quasi-Salesforce competitor that offers customer service agents. 

The approach appears, so far, appears to be working. In November, Sierra hit $100 million in annual recurring revenue in less than two years.  

There was once also the idea that cloud-based software like SaaS sells would never depreciate and that it could last for decades. This is still true in some ways compared to what came before — on-premises software, which companies had to install and maintain on their own servers.

But being in the cloud doesn’t protect SaaS vendors from an entirely new technology rising to compete: AI. 

Investors are rightfully nervous as AI-native companies pop up, adapt, adopt, and build technology much faster than a traditional SaaS company can move. SaaS companies are, after all, themselves the incumbents, having replaced old-school on-premises vendors in the last era of disruption. 

This SaaSpocalypse calls to mind that Taylor Swift lyric about what happens when “someone else lights up the room” because “people love an ingénue.” 

“The most important thing to understand about the SaaS pullback is that it is simultaneously a real structural shift and potentially a market overreaction,” Abdirahman said, adding that investors typically “sell first and ask questions later.”  

SaaS IPOs are on hold

Public-market SaaS companies aren’t the only ones feeling a chill from investors.  

A Crunchbase report released Wednesday showed that, though the IPO market seems to be thawing for some sectors, there haven’t been — and aren’t expected to be — any venture-backed SaaS filings on the horizon.  

Holiday said this may be because there is a lot of pressure on large, private, late-stage SaaS companies like Canva and Rippling given the persnickety IPO window, high expectations driven by AI advancements, and the unsteady stock price of already public SaaS companies.  

Some of these companies, including mid-size SaaS companies, have even struggled to raise extension rounds in the private market, Holiday said, over the same fears public investors have. 

“Nobody wants to be subjected to the volatility of public markets when sentiment can send companies into downward tailspins,” Rechtman said, adding he expects to see companies like these to stay private for much longer.  

Meanwhile, the public market waits to get a good look at the finances of the first AI-native companies hoping to IPO. The scuttlebutt says that both OpenAI and Anthropic are contemplating IPOs, maybe even later this year.

The most likely outcome is something that weaves the old and the new together, as tech disruptions always have.  

Holiday said most of the new features companies are toying with these days “won’t stick” and that enterprises will always need software that meets compliance regulations, supports audits, manages workflow, and offers durability. 

“Durable shareholder value isn’t built on hype,” he continued. “It’s built on fundamentals, retention, margins, real budgets, and defensibility.”  

source

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

Blue Origin successfully re-uses a New Glenn rocket for the first time ever

Blue Origin has successfully reused one of its New Glenn rockets for the first time ever, marking a major milestone for the heavy-launch system as Jeff Bezos’ space company looks to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

But the overall mission’s success may be in question. Roughly two hours after the launch, Blue Origin revealed that the communications satellite that New Glenn carried to space for AST SpaceMobile wound up in an “off-nominal orbit,” meaning something may have gone wrong with the rocket’s upper stage. In other words, it appears the company missed the mark.

“We have confirmed payload separation. AST SpaceMobile has confirmed the satellite has powered on,” the company wrote on X. “We are currently assessing and will update when we have more detailed information.”

AST later said Blue Origin’s rocket placed its satellite into an orbit that was “lower than planned,” so the satellite will have to be de-orbited.

According to a timeline provided by Blue Origin prior to the launch, the upper stage of New Glenn should have performed a second burn roughly one hour after the rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida. It’s unclear if that second burn ever happened, or if there were other problems with it, before the AST satellite was deployed.

The company accomplished the re-use feat Sunday on just the third-ever launch of New Glenn, and a little more than one year after the first flight of the new rocket system, which has been in development for more than a decade.

Making New Glenn reusable is crucial to its economics. SpaceX’s ability to re-fly Falcon 9 rocket boosters is one of the main reasons why it has come to dominate the global orbital launch market.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

While Blue Origin has already sent a commercial payload to space with New Glenn — Sunday was the second-such mission — the company wants to use the rocket for NASA moon missions, and to help both it and Amazon build space-based satellite networks. Blue Origin is currently finishing getting its first robotic moon lander ready for an attempted launch later this year.

The booster that Blue Origin re-flew on Sunday was the same one the company used in the second New Glenn mission in November. During that mission, the New Glenn booster helped put two robotic NASA spacecraft into space for a mission to Mars, before returning to a drone ship in the ocean. On Sunday, Blue Origin recovered the rocket booster a second time on a drone ship roughly 10 minutes after takeoff.

Any trouble deploying AST’s satellite could present a risk to Blue Origin’s near-term plans for New Glenn. Blue Origin has a deal with the communications company to send multiple satellites to orbit over the next few years as it works to build out its own space-based cellular broadband network.

This story has been updated with new information from Blue Origin and AST SpaceMobile.

source

Continue Reading

Tech

Cracks are starting to form on fusion energy’s funding boom

It happens in every emerging industry: founders and investors push toward a common goal, until the money starts to roll in and that shared vision begins to diverge.

Cracks are emerging in the fusion power world, which I saw firsthand at The Economist’s Fusion Fest in London last week. It didn’t dampen the overall buoyant mood, lifted by fusion startups’ fundraising haul of $1.6 billion in the last 12 months. But people had differing opinions on two key questions: When should fusion startups go public? And are side businesses a distraction?

Going public was at the top of everyone’s minds. In the last four months, TAE Technologies and General Fusion have announced plans to merge with publicly traded companies. Both stand to receive hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their R&D efforts alive, and investors, some of whom have kept the faith for 20 years, finally see an opportunity to cash out.

Not everyone is in agreement. Most of those who I spoke to were worried these companies were going public far too early and that they hadn’t achieved key milestones that many view as vital in judging the progress of a fusion company.

First, a recap: TAE announced its merger with Trump Media & Technology Group in December. Though the deal isn’t yet completed, the fusion side of the business has already received $200 million of a potential $300 million in cash from the deal, giving it some runway to continue planning its power plant. (The remainder will reportedly land in its bank account once it files the S-4 form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.)

General Fusion said in January that it would go public via a reverse merger with a special purpose acquisition company. The deal could net the company $335 million and value the combined entity at $1 billion. 

Both companies could use the cash.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Before the merger announcement, General Fusion was struggling to raise funds, and around this time last year it laid off 25% of its staff as CEO Greg Twinney posted a public letter pleading for investment. It received a brief reprieve in August when investors threw it a $22 million lifeline, but that sort of money doesn’t last long in the fusion world, where equipment, experiments, and employees don’t come cheap.

TAE’s position wasn’t quite as dire, but it still required some funds. Pre-merger, the company raised nearly $2 billion, which sounds like a lot, but keep in mind the company is nearly 30 years old. What’s more, its valuation pre-merger was $2 billion, according to PitchBook. Investors were breaking even at best.

Neither company has hit scientific breakeven, a key milestone that shows a reactor design has power plant potential. Many observers doubt they’ll hit that mark before other privately held startups do. One executive told me, if they were in those shoes, they’re not sure how they would fill time on quarterly earnings calls if the companies didn’t hit scientific breakeven soon.

If TAE or General Fusion doesn’t deliver results, several people feared the public markets would sour on the entire fusion industry.

Now, not all may be lost. TAE has already started marketing other products, including power electronics and radiation therapy for cancer. That could give the company some near-term revenue to placate shareholders. General Fusion, though, hasn’t revealed any such plans.

And therein lies another divide: fusion companies remain split on whether they should pursue revenue now or wait until they have a working power plant.

Some companies are embracing the opportunity to make money along the way. Not a bad strategy! Fusion is a long game, so why not improve your odds? Both Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Tokamak Energy have said they’ll be selling magnets. TAE and Shine Technologies are both in nuclear medicine.

Other startups are worried that side hustles could become a distraction. Inertia Enterprises, for example, told me that they’re laser-focused on their power plant. That jibes with what another investor told me months ago: — they were worried that fusion startups could get distracted by profitable, but tangential businesses and fall off the lead. 

There wasn’t consensus on the right time to go public either. I heard a few proposed milestones. Some believe startups should first reach that scientific breakeven milestone, in which a fusion reaction generates more energy than it needs to ignite. No startup has achieved that yet. The other possibilities are facility breakeven — when the reactor makes more energy than the entire site needs to operate — and commercial viability — when a reactor makes enough electrons to sell a meaningful amount to the grid.

We may have an answer to that question sooner than later. Commonwealth Fusion Systems expects it will hit scientific breakeven sometime next year, and some think the company might use that as an opportunity to go public.

source

Continue Reading

Tech

TechCrunch Mobility: Uber enters its assetmaxxing era

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, how AI is playing a part. To get this in your inbox, sign up here for free — just click TechCrunch Mobility!

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how Uber seemed to be everywhere, all at once in the emerging autonomous vehicle technology sector. The Financial Times has now put a number on it. The FT calculated that Uber has committed more than $10 billion to buying autonomous vehicles and taking equity stakes in the companies developing the tech, according to public records and discussions with folks behind the scenes. About $2.5 billion of that is in direct investments, with the remaining $7.5 billion to be spent on buying robotaxis over the next few years, the outlet reported.

We’ve reported on Uber’s numerous investments and deals with autonomous vehicle companies across drones, robotaxis, and freight. Some of its investments include WeRide, Lucid and Nuro, Rivian, and Wayve

This rather large number (and particularly that $7.5 billion) got me thinking about another transformative era in Uber’s history and how it has visited these asset-heavy shores before. Uber might have started with a plan to be asset light, but for a brief period it did quite the opposite.

Uber went on a moonshot spree between 2015 and 2018. It launched electric air taxi developer Uber Elevate and the in-house autonomous vehicle unit Uber ATG, which would be boosted by its acquisition of Otto in 2016. It also snapped up micromobility startup Jump in 2018. 

And then in 2020, Uber pulled the asset-heavy rip cord, ostensibly leaving all of those moonshots behind. Uber sold Uber ATG to Aurora, Jump to Lime, and Elevate to Joby Aviation. But it didn’t completely divest; it kept equity stakes in all of them.

Uber is now entering into a new and different asset-heavy era. It’s not plunking down millions, or even billions, to develop the technology in-house, although I’m sure folks there would be quick to pipe up that there is always R&D happening over at Uber. Instead, it appears to be focused on owning (or perhaps leasing) the physical assets. 

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

That could mean interesting line items on Uber’s balance sheet in the future. 

Owning fleets of robotaxis built by other companies might not have been the original vision of Uber, or its former CEO Travis Kalanick, who has said the company made a mistake when it abandoned its AV development program. But this new approach could still get it to the same end point.

A little bird

blinky cat bird green
Image Credits:Bryce Durbin

Earlier this month, I interviewed Eclipse partner Jiten Behl about the venture firm’s new $1.3 billion fund and where that money might be headed. The firm, as I wrote, intends to incubate more startups (e.g., it was behind the Rivian spinout Also). Behl wouldn’t give me details, only stating, “We’re definitely working on a couple of really cool ideas.” He also said Eclipse is particularly interested in startups that work across enterprises.

Thanks to one little bird and some document diving by senior reporter Sean O’Kane, it looks like a seed round announcement is imminent for a San Francisco-based startup working on an autonomous hauler that I’ve been told doesn’t have a driver cab. This sounds similar to what Einride has built, but since we haven’t seen it, we’ll have to wait. 

The company’s roster isn’t big, but it is chock-full of Silicon Valley tech elite, including a founder who was at Uber ATG, Pronto, and Waabi. Stay tuned for more. 

Got a tip for us? Email Kirsten Korosec at kirsten.korosec@techcrunch.com or my Signal at kkorosec.07, or email Sean O’Kane at sean.okane@techcrunch.com.

Deals!

money the station
Image Credits:Bryce Durbin

Slate is back with more capital as it prepares to put its first affordable pickup trucks into production by the end of 2026.

The electric vehicle startup, which got its start with backing from Jeff Bezos, raised another $650 million in a Series C funding round led by TWG Global. Keep your eye on TWG. This is the firm run by Guggenheim Partners chief executive (and Los Angeles Dodgers owner) Mark Walter and investor Thomas Tull. 

Slate has raised about $1.4 billion to date, and its previous investors include General Catalyst, Jeff Bezos’ family office, VC firm Slauson & Co., and former Amazon executive Diego Piacentini, as TechCrunch first reported last year.

Other deals that got my attention …

Glydways, a San Francisco-based startup developing personal autonomous pods designed to operate on dedicated 2-meter-wide lanes in cities, raised $170 million in a Series C funding round co-led by Suzuki Motor Corporation, ACS Group, and Khosla Ventures. Existing investors Mitsui Chemicals and Gates Frontier and new investor Obayashi Corporation also participated. But wait, there’s more

GM and Ford are reportedly talking to the Pentagon about whether the auto industry can help the military revamp its procurement program and find cheaper, faster ways to buy vehicles, munitions, or other hardware, the New York Times reported, citing anonymous sources.

Loop, a San Francisco-based startup, raised $95 million in a Series C funding round led by Valor Equity Partners and the Valor Atreides AI Fund, and includes investments from 8VC, Founders Fund, Index Ventures, and J.P. Morgan’s late-stage fund, Growth Equity Partners.

Monarch Tractor, the startup developing electric, autonomous tractors, has moved on to (ahem) a different pasture. The startup’s assets have been acquired by Caterpillar after struggling to pivot to a software services business.

Uber is increasing its stake in Delivery Hero by 4.5%, the Financial Times reported. Uber agreed to buy about 270 million euros in shares from Prosus, the Dutch investment group and Delivery Hero’s largest shareholder.

Notable reads and other tidbits

Image Credits:Bryce Durbin

Doug Field, the high-profile executive who shaped Ford’s electric vehicle and technology strategies over the past five years, is leaving. Notably, Ford is shaking up the organization as well, creating a “product creation and industrialization” team to be led by COO Kumar Galhotra. Any guesses where Field is headed next? Perhaps he’ll return to Silicon Valley. 

Lightship, the all-electric RV startup, is expanding its Colorado-based factory by another 44,000 square feet, which will allow it to quadruple its manufacturing capacity.

Rivian and battery recycling and materials startup Redwood Materials partnered years ago. We’re now seeing the fruits of that relationship. Redwood is installing battery energy storage at Rivian’s factory in Illinois. The catch? Redwood is using 100 second-life Rivian battery packs, which will provide 10 megawatt-hours (MWh) of dispatchable energy to reduce cost and grid load during peak demand periods.

Tesla created a new self-driving app that makes it easier for owners to subscribe to its Full Self-Driving software and see statistics on how — and how often — they use it. This may not be huge news, but it did catch my eye because of the gamified qualities of these new stats. 

Waymo, as per usual, has a few news items this week. The Alphabet-owned company started testing its autonomous vehicles on public roads in London. It also removed its waitlist in Miami and Orlando to scale its robotaxi services in the two cities. 

One more thing …

This newsletter isn’t my only project that is leaning more heavily into robotics. My podcast, the Autonocast, is too, as the worlds of autonomous vehicles, AI, and robotics mash together. Check out this interview with Foxglove founder Adrian MacNeil, who previously worked at Cruise.

source

Continue Reading