Is AI bringing us to the end of software? After experimenting with tools that can recreate familiar applications and building several applications of my own, I don’t think that’s quite what’s happening. But the relationship between software companies and their customers is changing, particularly when someone only needs a few features from an application that requires an ongoing subscription.
In my latest video, I dive into this topic and show off some of the apps I’ve put together.
One example is Artcraft, a suite of open-source applications developed with AI that attempts to replicate parts of Microsoft Office and Adobe’s software. Its Wordcraft word processor resembles Microsoft Word, while Photocraft offers a Photoshop-like interface with layers and other familiar editing tools. The resemblance is there, but that doesn’t mean the functionality is equivalent.
In my testing, Photocraft struggled with a subject-selection task that involved separating me from a background. Apple’s Pixelmator Pro handled the same task more accurately. I don’t see these applications replacing established tools for people with demanding workflows just yet.
What interests me about Artcraft is the ability to start with its source code and adapt it. I could use its existing open-source codebase as a starting point and focus an AI model on developing particular functions that would enhance my workflow.
Alternatives to subscription software existed long before these AI tools arrived. I’ve used Pixelmator Pro for years, for example. What has changed for me is the ability to create something around my own requirements instead of searching for another application and adjusting to how it works.
My accounting software was one of the first places I put that into practice. I was paying nearly $40 a month for QuickBooks, yet my login screen was filled with offers to purchase additional services. My bookkeeping needs were relatively simple, so I built a small accounting application to handle them. That let me replace the subscription and save about $450 annually.
I took a similar approach with text expansion. I had purchased TextExpander twice over the years before it moved to a subscription model. The feature I needed was straightforward: type a short abbreviation and have it expand into a longer passage, such as the footer I use in my YouTube video descriptions. I switched to another application, but found it more complicated than I wanted.
Using ChatGPT, I developed a utility called Keypaste. It lives in my Mac’s menu bar, expands my text shortcuts, supports variables such as clipboard contents, and synchronizes my macros across Macs through iCloud. I also added a clipboard history and a function that removes files from my Downloads folder after they haven’t been touched for five days. Those additions brought together functions I had previously used separate applications to perform.
Another example is Final Cut Index, which I built to generate YouTube chapter markers from a Final Cut Pro XML file. I had been using Producer’s Best Friend for that task, but faced a choice between purchasing a newer version at a higher price or subscribing to it. Since I only needed one part of the application, I created a tool focused on that job. And it does that job better.
Some of these projects address needs that come up while I’m producing videos. Over a weekend, I needed to send my Mac’s screen to my vMix production system in real time without adding more hardware. I pointed Claude at the Open Media Transport library and had it build an application around it.
The resulting OMT Scan Converter sends a 4K, 60-frame-per-second feed over my network. It also lets me adjust the frame rate and have it work as a secondary display. I put the initial application together in about half an hour while working on another video. For my production process, where I record much of the program live to reduce editing afterward, it fills a specific need.
I’ve also built Siphon, a video-downloading utility that I’ve tested with sites including YouTube and just about any web page with hosted video, and Local Transcriber, which turns a video’s audio into text or an SRT caption file. Local Transcriber runs on the Mac using its built-in transcription capabilities. I also developed it with a locally running AI model, making it an example of a project that didn’t require a cloud model for development or transcription.
Not every project has been about replacing a paid utility. I’ve been working on a recreation of Wings of Fury, an Apple II game I played as a kid. Claude analyzed the original game running in an emulator and reconstructed it in Swift. I then had it work with ChatGPT to generate a new set of graphics that I can switch to while playing. It remains a work in progress, but I’ve also been able to change gameplay details that bothered me in the original.
My more involved project is Chief of Staff, a task-management system built around my channel work, school board responsibilities, and family commitments. It brings together project information and uses a local AI model to help track obligations in attached email threads. If someone asks me to do something, it can create a task. If someone completes something I requested, it can update that task.
The purpose is to collect the information I need to make decisions. I don’t want it making those decisions or writing emails on my behalf. Because I control the application, I can adjust its behavior as I discover what works. It is replacing the role OmniFocus played in my workflow while adding functions I had wanted for years.
These experiences give me a different way to evaluate software purchases. I’m still using Final Cut Pro because its capabilities justify its place in my workflow. Replacing a chapter-marker utility is a different undertaking from replacing the editor itself.
For software developers, I think that puts more weight on customer relationships, flexibility, and the value of the features they provide. A customer who needs a narrow set of functions now has another option when a subscription becomes difficult to justify.
I’m continuing to pay for software that meets my needs. But when I encounter a missing feature, an unnecessary complication, or another subscription for a small task, I can now consider building something that fits the way I work.