Hold on. Before you nod along with the latest "AI killed X" hot take, let me throw some cold water on this party.
Yes, VentureBeat just declared that build vs buy is dead because AI supposedly flipped the entire decision framework. And sure, the numbers look compelling at first glance. Menlo Ventures reports that purchased AI solutions jumped from 53% to 76% of enterprise use cases as the stack matured. Senior engineers cost north of $200k fully loaded. AI can prototype in days instead of months.
But here's what's really happening: we're not killing build vs buy—we're just getting seduced by the easy button.
<> "AI dramatically shortens prototyping and development time, while purchased AI platforms deliver ongoing vendor maintenance, updates, and compliance that reduce long-term engineering overhead."/>
That sounds fantastic until you realize what we're trading away.
The Shiny Object Problem
Look, I get it. Your finance team walks into that vendor pitch, sees the demo working flawlessly, and the math seems obvious. Why spend six figures on engineering talent when you can buy the solution for a fraction of the cost?
Because math isn't strategy.
SVPG nailed this: companies will consume AI services as "controllable building blocks," but the real competitive advantage comes from how you integrate and design around those blocks. If everyone's buying the same components, where's your differentiation?
Three uncomfortable truths nobody's talking about:
- The governance tax is real - Even when buying, you need security reviews, bias monitoring, and compliance oversight
- AI-generated code still needs human babysitting - Bain's 2025 report emphasizes that productivity gains evaporate without process changes and proper testing
- Subscription creep is coming - Those predictable OpEx costs have a funny way of becoming unpredictably expensive
The Elephant in the Room
Here's what everyone's dancing around: this isn't really about build vs buy dying. It's about risk tolerance.
The "buy everything" crowd is betting that vendor roadmaps will align with their needs. Forever. That pricing won't get aggressive once you're locked in. That the next AI breakthrough won't make your purchased solution obsolete.
Meanwhile, the "build with AI assistance" approach means accepting that your developers need new skills. Prompt engineering. Model evaluation. MLOps orchestration. It's messier, but you own the outcome.
What Actually Makes Sense
Stop thinking binary. Start thinking strategic.
- Buy commodity functions that aren't core to your differentiation
- Build (with AI assistance) anything that defines your competitive advantage
- Hybrid everything else - buy the foundation, customize the edges
Bain got this right: AI can improve developer productivity across the lifecycle, but only if you invest in the process changes to capture that value. Otherwise, you're just generating technical debt faster.
The Real Future
The consulting firms and VCs pushing the "just buy it" narrative have skin in the game. They're invested in the vendors selling these solutions.
But here's my prediction: the companies that thrive won't be the ones who bought fastest. They'll be the ones who figured out which capabilities to own, which to rent, and how to make them work together seamlessly.
Build vs buy isn't dead. It just got more nuanced. And if you're making these decisions based on demo day magic instead of strategic thinking, you're setting yourself up for a very expensive lesson in vendor dependency.
The question isn't whether AI killed build vs buy. It's whether you're smart enough to avoid getting killed by the hype.
