Andrew Fong

The co-founder of Replit just dropped the most contrarian take on product strategy I've heard all year. She deliberately built their coding platform for people who can't code. At our Enrich event last week, Haya Odeh said something that completely flipped how 40 CTOs and VPs think about building products: “Figma is for engineers. Figma is never for designers. I say Replit is for designers, not developers.” A coding platform that's not for coders? Here's what she meant: The people actually using Replit aren't engineers with strong opinions about their dev tools. They're PMs and designers who want to build something but don't have the technical background to set up environments on their own. These users have nowhere else to go. They'd be completely stuck without a tool like Replit. Meanwhile, engineers already have solutions they love. They're opinionated about their tools and know exactly what they want. Fighting for their attention means competing with deeply entrenched preferences. This is the strategic insight most founders miss: Sometimes your best users aren't who you'd expect. They're the people who have no other option. Haya wasn't being provocative - she was demonstrating radical clarity about product strategy. Being willing to say "our coding platform isn't for coders" lets Replit move 10x faster than competitors trying to please everyone. This clarity changes what features you prioritize, how you talk about your product, who you hire, how you structure your team. Every decision becomes obvious when you know exactly who you're serving. Replit's success proves something important: Sometimes the best strategy isn't expanding your market. It's having the discipline to ignore the obvious users and obsess over the underserved. These are the kinds of insights we explore at Enrich - a selective network where VPs, Directors, and CXOs connect with peers, gain strategic insights, and accelerate their leadership growth through intimate dinners and candid conversations. Thanks to Haya for taking the time. If you want an invite to the next talk, DM me!

33

5 Comments

If a company can unify identity for advertising, the expectation is that it can unify opt-out enforcement just as effectively. Regulators seem to be signaling that compliance is evaluated at the ecosystem level, not the product level. That turns architectural fragmentation into regulatory exposure. The recent $2.75M CCPA settlement involving a major streaming platform reinforces this shift. This wasn’t about whether a “Do Not Sell” link existed. Regulators tested what happens after a user opts out, across devices, environments, and services tied to the same account. For streaming and media companies, that’s where things get complicated. Users move across: Web Mobile apps Smart TVs Roku / FireTV Logged-in experiences Ad-supported tiers Opt-out logic has to travel across account IDs, device IDs, MAIDs, household graphs, and measurement layers. That propagation layer is rarely clean. Most teams are navigating inherited architectures, evolving ad-tech stacks, and rapid product cycles. But it does raise harder questions: - Are opt-outs truly account-level? - Does suppression behave consistently across surfaces? - Would testing web vs mobile vs CTV produce identical outcomes? - How to demonstrate for runtime validation, not just configuration evidence?

32

4 Comments

AI has already replaced Google in law firms. Here's what that actually means: I recently interviewed Tamara Pow, founding partner of Strategy Law, LLP, and one of the Top 50 Women Northern California SuperLawyers, and an awesome client of ours. Key takeaways: ↳ AI tools like ChatGPT are becoming the first stop for legal research ↳ Every source still must be verified through Westlaw, Lexis, or official authorities, that part is non-negotiable ↳ AI helps polish memos and letters, saving valuable drafting time ↳ It's especially helpful for attorneys whose first language isn’t English ↳ Over the next 6 to 24 months, law firms will need policies to guide AI use and balance efficiency with accuracy My takeaway? Legal professionals don’t need to fear AI. They need to understand where it adds value with confidence and where only human judgment will do. Where are you already using AI confidently in your legal or compliance work? The full video link in comments. #LegalTech #AIinLaw #ChatGPT #Innovation #Leadership #ProfessionalServices

176

4 Comments