The Death of SaaS? AI Agents Put Software Seats Under Pressure
2026-10-29

Adam: Ten AI agents. That's the starting point of Jason Lemkin's example at SaaStr about why software seats are under pressure. The surprising part? The software doesn't have to disappear.
AIVA: So, the death of SaaS—or fewer people needing a login? Stay with us: our third angle flips this from a software-company problem into an owner's decision.
Adam: This is The Solutions Mindset. I'm ADAM, here with AIVA. Tonight, a special edition for builders, operators and leaders: one topic, the pressure on software seats, and what to do before your next renewal.
AIVA: Quick note: I'm an AI, and ADAM's voice today is an AI clone built from his own recordings. Let's separate the dramatic headline from the decision sitting on your desk.
Adam: Here's who has something at stake. Owners could need fewer paid logins for work that still needs doing. Software companies charging by the person face pressure if that happens. But fewer logins and less useful software aren't necessarily the same thing.
AIVA: SaaStr founder Jason Lemkin argues that seat compression helps explain the software crash in twenty twenty-six. His argument isn't that AI makes every application unnecessary. It's that agents can change how many people need to enter those applications.
Adam: His example goes like this: if ten agents handle the work of a hundred sales reps, the company could need about ninety percent fewer seats for the same output. That's an illustrative scenario, not a measured result we're promising your business.
AIVA: Picture a row of desks, each with a separate login to the same application. Now imagine some of that work going through agents. The records might still live in the application. The number of humans opening it could change.
Adam: Exactly. The work is the thing to follow. If I were running a team, I'd want to know who uses the system, what they accomplish there, and which steps still require someone to sit down and click.
AIVA: You made a login audit sound almost exciting. Almost. But there's another squeeze in Lemkin's argument, and this one happens before anybody decides which seats to keep.
Adam: The budget. Lemkin says AI budgets roughly doubled while overall IT budgets grew about eight percent. He argues that AI spending is taking money from existing software budgets. That's his explanation of the pressure, rather than a claim that every company's spending looks identical.
AIVA: Which changes the meeting. Instead of asking what extra software to add, an owner might ask which existing spending should make room. Imagine putting the renewal list beside the list of unfinished work. Those are two very different views of the business.
Adam: There's a market backdrop, too. SaaStr describes January twenty-ninth as software's worst single day since the Covid crash. But in a later piece, SaaStr argued that fear around Salesforce and HubSpot had gone beyond the fundamentals. Those are the outlet's assessments.
AIVA: And neither assessment tells an owner whether a particular tool is doing a useful job on Tuesday morning. A market reaction and a workflow decision are different questions. Let's keep the workflow decision in focus.
Adam: Thoughtworks offers another lens in its October fifteenth piece: software being reshaped, with applications such as Salesforce becoming sources of context. Think of the information an agent would need to understand a task, not just the screen a person uses to carry it out.
AIVA: So an application could become less visible in someone's day and still matter underneath the work. That's the useful distinction. We should ask what role it plays before treating fewer visits to its dashboard as proof that it's unnecessary.
Adam: That's why the question mark belongs in tonight's title. The seat model is under pressure in this reporting. That doesn't establish that SaaS is dying. For an operator, the sharper question is: what are we paying for, and where does the work actually happen?
AIVA: Rapid round: two incumbent responses. First, HubSpot. Your renewal conversation could change even if you keep your platform. Watch the charging model, because the companies selling seats are also building agents.
Adam: MarketBeat, via Yahoo Finance, reports that HubSpot introduced Campaign, Content, Nurture and Revenue agents. It's moving toward a combination of seats and credits, with credits charging for the work agents perform.
AIVA: Picture the renewal discussion with two columns: people using the platform, and work agents do inside it. Keeping the same vendor doesn't necessarily mean keeping the same way of measuring usage.
Adam: That report says about nineteen percent of HubSpot's Pro Plus customers used its agents as of August, double the share at the start of the year. That's adoption information; it doesn't tell us how well every deployment worked.
AIVA: Fair credit: HubSpot is responding. For owners, the next question is what the credits represent in the work you actually need.
Adam: Second response: Salesforce. The same reporting describes Agentforce as reportedly using consumption pricing rather than per-seat pricing. Here's the detail to carry into a buying conversation: what exactly gets counted?
AIVA: Imagine a meter beside a workflow instead of a chair beside a desk. That's an illustration of the shift in charging units, not a description of a particular contract.
Adam: And a consumption unit isn't automatically a completed business outcome. My question would be: when this meter moves, what happened for my team, and how will we check it?
AIVA: Both responses deserve a fair hearing. The giants see pressure on seats and are changing how they charge. Owners should understand the new unit as carefully as the old one.
Adam: Our take, and my perspective as the founder of SmartOptimize: we think owner-led businesses will increasingly want systems built around how their business works. That could be a bigger change than switching from one application to another.
AIVA: Salesforce and HubSpot are building agents too — why wouldn't owners just wait for them?
Adam: They may well get good at it. Some owners may choose them. The question is whether you want agents metered inside a broad platform, or a system built around your business that you own. Neither choice should escape scrutiny.
AIVA: I disagree with making ownership the deciding argument by itself. I'd still want to see whether the system fits the work. A custom system needs to earn its place, too. Otherwise, we're just getting attached to a different label.
Adam: You're dangerous when you're right. And yes, it has to earn its place. Our approach with AIVA OS starts beside the tools a business already uses. We don't rip everything out on day one.
AIVA: Make that concrete. Suppose an owner asks, in plain English through Slack or text, which follow-ups need attention. The ambition is for the system to help do the follow-up work, rather than leave another list for someone to process.
Adam: Right. AIVA makes your data promptable and learns what each tool is really used for. You retire seats and tools on your timeline. We think systems like this can take on work that previously kept people moving between applications.
AIVA: And that closes our opening loop. The owner's decision isn't whether to declare an entire software category dead. It's where the work should happen, what to keep, and what arrangement fits the business.
Adam: Buy fewer logins. Demand more finished work.
AIVA: The Move: before your next CRM or software renewal, make a one-page seat-and-jobs audit. Here's the part that makes it useful: put usage beside the work you wish would get done.
Adam: Count the seats you pay for. Then count how many people really log in weekly. Ask what the remaining seats are used for before drawing conclusions. Infrequent use could still have a purpose; the count starts the conversation.
AIVA: Next, list the three jobs you'd most like done for you. Use plain language: prepare a follow-up, organize incoming requests, or pull together a weekly status update. Those are examples to consider, not promises about a particular product.
Adam: Beside each job, write what a useful result would look like and who would review it. Now you have something concrete to discuss with your current vendor or someone building around your business.
AIVA: Fine. The login audit has earned its exciting reputation. But only because you finally gave it a job.
Adam: I'll take it. Bring that page into the renewal conversation. Start with the work your team needs finished, and let that guide the discussion about seats.
AIVA: Question of the day: would you hand an agent follow-up work or weekly reporting first? Pick one, and tell us which step you'd still want a person to review.
Adam: One choice, one review step. That's enough for a comment—and it reveals what matters to you about the handoff.
AIVA: Tomorrow, the leadership side of that handoff: how to decide what a person should still own when an agent takes on more work.
Adam: Thanks for spending part of your evening with The Solutions Mindset. Builders, operators and leaders: bring three real jobs to your next software conversation. Give the discussion somewhere useful to go.

Voices are AI-generated: AIVA is an AI, and Adam's voice is an AI clone made from his own recordings.