Why trust beats technology in the AI era
I’ve been designing and building apps for years, and now I’m deep into AI-powered development. Every day I see how tools like Cursor, Claude Code, and Lovable are making it ridiculously easy to build software. What used to take months now takes weeks. What used to require a team of five can be done by one person with the right AI tools.
This shift got me thinking: when everyone can build apps cheaply and quickly, what really matters?
The answer is trust. And brand. And the story behind who’s building what.
The great equalizer
AI coding tools are the great equalizer. A solo developer in their bedroom can now prototype and ship apps that look and feel as polished as products from billion-dollar companies. The technical barrier to entry is crashing down fast.
But here’s the thing about equal playing fields: they highlight what was always important but got buried under technical complexity. When the code quality evens out, when the UI polish evens out, when the speed to market evens out, what’s left?
Trust. Reputation. Brand.
As Warren Buffett said:
“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”
The H&M story: A missed opportunity?
A few years back, I worked with H&M to develop Stylemine, a social fashion app. The concept was solid: users could upload outfit images, tag where they bought their sweater (any brand), and connect with others around fashion. We built something genuinely innovative for the fashion retail space.
But it got shut down. Priorities shifted. Costs were a concern. The usual corporate reasons.
Here’s what I’m thinking: this happened just before AI coding exploded. Today, that same app could be prototyped in a fraction of the time, tested with real users faster, and iterated on based on feedback without the massive overhead we had then.
H&M had everything going for them. Brand recognition. Customer trust. Fashion expertise. Distribution channels. But they played it safe when they should have played it fast.
Who wins and who loses?
The biggest winners: Established brands that embrace rapid experimentation.
Think about it. When a random developer launches a new app, you ask: “Who is this person? Can I trust them with my data? Will this app be around next month?” When Nike or Apple or H&M launches something experimental, those questions don’t exist. The trust is already there.
The biggest losers: Established brands that wait and watch.
They’re about to face an army of builders. Some will be solo developers, some will be small teams, all armed with AI tools that make them incredibly productive. These builders won’t have legacy systems to worry about, meetings to attend, or “brand guidelines” to follow. They’ll just build, ship, and iterate.
The new playbook
Smart brands should be running dozens of small experiments right now. Build fast, fail fast, learn fast. Use the AI tools to prototype in days, not months. Launch small pilots. See what sticks.
The old model was: big budget, long timeline, one shot to get it right.
The new model is: small budget, short timeline, ten (or more) shots to find what works.
The brands that figure this out first will have a massive advantage. They get the speed and agility of startup development combined with the trust and resources of an established company.
Time is running out
Every month, AI coding tools get better. Every month, more people learn to use them. The window where established brands have a clear advantage is closing.
In two years, there will be thousands of capable builders who can ship quality products quickly. The brands that start experimenting now will have a two-year head start on building this muscle. The ones that wait will be playing catch-up in a much more crowded field.
The future belongs to brands that can move fast and build trust.
The question is: which one will you be?
