Karri Saarinen emphasizes that a product’s soul comes from the people who build it, not from automated pipelines.
SOFTWARE'S LOST SOUL: KARRI SAARINEN ON PRODUCT INTUITION
*Karri Saarinen argues that software should reflect its makers, not a faceless factory. He warns that additive‑only development erodes product character, leaving users with functional but soulless tools.*
Karri Saarinen, founder of Linear, published a candid essay on October 15, 2026, arguing that software should bear the imprint of its creators. He insists that a product’s character emerges from the makers’ experience, values, and judgment, not from a sterile assembly line. Saarinen describes this imprint as the ‘soul’ of a product, a feeling that users can sense when someone cares about how the whole thing fits together. He contrasts this with the growing trend of treating software as a factory output, where teams chase feature count over cohesive design.
The essay warns that modern development pipelines, driven by autonomous agents and isolated micro‑factories, produce collections of capabilities that lack a unified point of view. Saarinen observes that adding new functions is easier than rethinking existing ones, leading to Frankenstein‑like products that work but feel impersonal. He argues that without a shared perspective, the decisions that once gave a product its distinct voice are diluted day by day.
Why does intuition matter in software design?
Saarinen defines intuition as a judgment honed through experience, customer conversations, and repeated mistakes. He says intuition is not whim but a distilled understanding of what matters beyond raw data. By forcing teams to rely on this personal point of view, products gain coherence and purpose. He cites Linear’s pre‑launch research across roles as evidence that listening fuels intuition, allowing the team to prioritize features that truly solve pain points. The result, he says, is a product that feels intentional rather than assembled from disparate requests.
How does Linear’s approach differ from factory‑style development?
Linear, according to Saarinen, values intuition over rigid process or pure metrics. The company talks to people across companies and roles before building, letting frustration with existing tools shape its roadmap. This contrasts with a factory mindset that treats requirements as a checklist and measures success solely by feature delivery. Linear’s method keeps the creator close to customers, ensuring each decision reflects a broader understanding of the problem. The essay claims that this proximity prevents the product from becoming a mere collection of capabilities.
What risks arise from additive‑only product changes?
Saarinen observes that adding new capabilities is easier than rethinking existing ones. Teams, he notes, often produce independent changes that make sense in isolation but together form a Frankenstein‑like monster. Without a shared perspective, each addition dilutes the original vision, turning a cohesive tool into an average of outputs. The essay warns that such incrementalism leads to products that work but lack a unified point of view, making it harder for users to feel any creator behind the software.
Can software creators reclaim the ‘soul’ of their products?
Saarinen remains optimistic, saying that making software is getting easier, which should give developers more room to develop a perspective and follow it. He urges creators to understand problems deeply and keep shaping answers until the pieces belong together. By staying close to customers and resisting the lure of endless feature addition, teams can re‑inject care and intentionality. The essay ends with a call to feel the creator behind the software, not the factories that churn it out.
Frequently asked questions
What does Karri Saarinen say about product intuition?
He says intuition develops through experience, customer talks, and mistakes, and should guide decisions instead of hiding behind faceless data.
Why does Saarinen criticize additive‑only product changes?
He argues that adding new capabilities is easier than rethinking existing ones, leading to fragmented products that work but lack a unified point of view.
How does Linear’s development philosophy differ from a factory approach?
Linear values intuition over strict process, talks to people across roles before building, and lets frustration with existing tools shape its roadmap, unlike a checklist‑driven factory model.
Saarinen’s warning is a call to action for every software team that has let process eclipse purpose. As tools for automation become more powerful, the temptation to outsource judgment grows. Yet the essay reminds us that only a human‑shaped intuition can stitch features into a meaningful whole. The next wave of products will be judged not by how many capabilities they pack, but by whether users still sense a creator behind the code.
Sources: [Hacker News – Someone behind the software]