{
  "id": 3507800,
  "title": "Everyone wants to build an app",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/26/everyone-wants-to-build-an-app",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-08-26T12:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Fast Company",
    "slug": "fast-company",
    "url": "https://www.fastcompany.com/91594428/everyone-wants-to-build-an-app"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Many conversations with clients lately center around the idea of automating tasks or building agents. We're using tools like Manus, Claude Code, and Base44, which have lowered the barrier to building. These tools are changing what teams and clients can achieve. However, clients often underestimate what it takes to create a stable, secure, and valuable app or agent. Our role isn't just to build the workflow; we must ensure they understand the effort required. Here are five key points to consider before embarking on app or agent development:\n\n1. Building an app is not a strategy. It's a starting point. Clients need clarity on the app's function and what success looks like. Without this foundation, the project can stall and lose confidence. Key questions include the user experience, integration with existing tools, security measures, and how to handle unexpected input. Without addressing these upfront, the outcome may suffer regardless of the tools or talent used.\n\n2. No-code tools don't mean no effort. While they reduce the need for coding, they require deep thinking about the system. Non-engineering teams can prototype, test, and iterate, but they still need to map flows, write logic, and test edge cases. This process is time-consuming and requires careful planning. The skill set needed is more about understanding the system clearly than programming knowledge.\n\n3. Building in the dark is common. There's no fixed process for building apps with no-code tools. Developers are learning as they go, making adjustments based on what works and what doesn't. This iterative process can be frustrating for those expecting a predictable build. However, if you're comfortable experimenting and refining, this ambiguity can be an advantage.\n\n4. Time is a significant factor. With no fixed blueprint, the work is iterative, leading to many rounds of testing and refinement. Billable hours can add up quickly. The question shouldn't be about how fast the app can be built, but how much investment is needed to get it right. This requires a different conversation about expectations and outcomes.\n\n5. The thinking process is the key differentiator. While 30% of no-code builders are non-technical, not everyone can build a useful app or agent. The thinking behind the idea, understanding the target audience, and the discipline to refine and test are crucial. The tools are becoming more accessible, but the success of the project depends on the clarity of the concept and the effort invested in the planning phase.",
  "summary": "Many of our client conversations lately start the same way. “What if we automated that?” “Can we build an agent for this?” “We should just spin something up.” We get it. We’re excited too. We’re deep into tools like Manus, Claude Code, and Base44 , figuring out what’s possible now that the barrier to building has basically collapsed. These tools genuinely change what teams like ours—and the…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}