Unpopular opinion: Most of us are building digital products no one actually needs
I’m starting to think the real problem with digital products isn’t distribution or even competition, it’s that a lot of what we’re building simply isn’t necessary enough for anyone to pay for, and we hide that reality behind phrases like “I just need more traffic” or “I haven’t found the right audience yet”
if we’re being honest, a huge number of products out there are just reorganized information, slightly repackaged ideas, or “complete guides” that assume people are willing to spend time learning something after they buy, and that assumption feels more and more disconnected from how people actually behave now
because when you look at what’s quietly working, it’s rarely the most detailed or thoughtful product, it’s the one that removes the most effort from the user, something they can open and use immediately without needing to think through steps or decisions, and that shift creates a weird tension where better doesn’t always win, easier does
and I get why this is uncomfortable to admit, because it challenges the idea that putting more effort into a product should naturally lead to better outcomes, but the market doesn’t really reward effort anymore, it rewards clarity and speed of value, and if a product doesn’t feel instantly useful, it gets skipped no matter how much work went into it
so maybe the reason a lot of digital products “fail” isn’t because the idea was bad or the execution was poor, but because it wasn’t solving a problem that felt urgent enough to act on right now, which is a much harder thing to confront than tweaking marketing or distribution
curious if others here are seeing the same thing or if I’m missing something, because it feels like there’s a growing gap between what creators think is valuable and what users actually pay for
I wrote a deeper breakdown of what I found, including what seems to be working vs what’s already saturated, if anyone wants to challenge or build on this
https://jarvisreach.io/blog/digital-products-to-sell-in-2026/
Not unpopular - accurate. The template space in particular is full of products that scratch the creator's itch rather than solving an actual workflow problem. A beautiful Notion template that nobody uses after week one is a common story.
The products that work are workflow-native: they slot into something the buyer is already doing every day. A solo founder is already thinking about clients, projects, and revenue whether or not they have a system for it. The job is to give that existing mental activity a home.
Building a Solopreneur Notion OS from this angle - 6 databases that replace existing scattered behavior (DM-based CRM, mental revenue tracking, ad-hoc project notes) rather than adding new habits. The need already exists; the product just makes it visible and manageable. What's your test for whether a digital product is solving a real workflow vs. a hypothetical one?
Mostly agree, with one nuance: the problem isn't that founders build things people don't need - it's that they build things before verifying anyone wants them specifically.
The tell is in how validation gets treated. Most founders validate by asking 'would you use this?' (almost always yes) instead of 'what are you currently doing instead, and what would it take for you to switch?' (much harder answer).
Real need shows up in workarounds. People actively patching broken systems with spreadsheets, multiple tools, or just memory - that's the signal. The workaround IS the product brief.
I've been applying this to a Solopreneur OS: instead of asking solo founders 'would you use a Notion OS?', I ask how they currently track clients, pipeline, decisions, and revenue. The answer is almost always: different tabs, Google Sheets, vague memory. The system already exists in broken form - I'm just making it coherent.
Validate the workaround, not the idea. What's the most revealing question you've found for separating real need from polite interest?
The 'no one needs it' problem almost always has the same root: the builder validated the solution (people said it sounded cool) without validating the problem (people tried to solve it with workarounds before the product existed).
If people aren't already solving a problem badly, your product that solves it better has no market. The bad solution is the market signal.
The test I use: before I build anything, I look for evidence of workarounds. Are people using spreadsheets to do this? Hiring VAs? Duct-taping 3 tools together? If yes, the problem is real. If nobody has found a workaround, either the problem isn't painful enough to solve or I've invented a problem that doesn't exist.
Running this test right now with a Solopreneur Notion OS I'm validating: solo founders at /bin/bash-5K MRR are already managing their business across 3-5 different tools (Notion for docs, separate CRM, spreadsheet for revenue, etc.). The bad solution is the market signal. I'm building the integrated version of what they're already doing badly.
What's the product you built where users had no existing workaround - and what did that tell you?
The 'nobody needs it' failure is almost always a specificity problem. Founders build for 'startup founders' or 'small businesses' rather than naming a specific moment of pain for a specific person.
The products that do get used solve a problem someone experiences every single day - they just don't have a name for it yet.
I'm validating a Solopreneur Notion OS right now: 6 linked databases for the solo founder at /bin/bash-5K MRR who manages clients, projects, and revenue across 4-5 different apps with nothing connecting them. That's a daily pain - context loss, repeated triage, decisions made and forgotten. The gap isn't in product quality; it's in whether the target is specific enough.
What's the validation step you see most builders skip?
Hey
There's something right in this thesis but I'd push back on one piece. "Better doesn't win, easier does" conflates two different things — and I think that conflation is what's actually misleading founders.
Look at what actually wins: Notion is harder than Apple Notes. Figma is harder than PowerPoint. Linear is harder than Trello. None of them won because they removed effort. They won because they were sharper at one specific use case for one specific buyer.
The pattern isn't "easier beats better." It's "specific beats generic." A tool that does one thing precisely for one buyer feels easier because it eliminates the cognitive overhead of "is this for me, and what do I do with it." That's not lower effort in the product — that's clarity in the positioning.
So when products fail, I don't think it's because they were too detailed or required too much learning. They failed because the positioning was generic — "for anyone who wants to be more productive" instead of "for solo founders who keep losing track of customer conversations." Same effort. Different conversion. The market does reward clarity. It just punishes vague clarity disguised as breadth.
Fair point, it’s less “easier vs better” and more specific vs generic.
When a product clearly feels “made for me,” it feels easier even if it’s complex.
Most products fail in the middle, where they’re neither simple nor specific enough.