I loathe to say this, but it might not be good for the economy because it fails to take into consideration division of labour.<p>A 'niche product' is usually be more economically better provided by a slightly more generic product, or a 'product feature' at by BigCo or SME.<p>Of course there are always going to be 'hyper niches' with very, specific and applied technology, but I don't feel this is the case.<p>I think most of these micro saas just have customers that 'like them' and 'pay a certain amount' 'because' and not really fully taking into consideration the added complexity, cost, overhead, resiliency.<p>In China, they have hugely complex manufacturing supply chains - yes - you need the little 'mom and pop shops' to provide that hyper niche component - but with generic SaaS it's not the case really.<p>All of that said, the theory falters a bit when you have A) Big Corps and SMEs that languish and fail to provide features, or have monopoly pricing power (though the later is not usually the case, usually the price is near $0) and B) Surpluses are not shared aka if we all used BigCo and SME SaaS, they'd 'keep' all the surpluses and so everyone else is resigned to working at Starbucks. The $1M SaaS is basically a way to leverage power extract some surplus at the cost of overall efficiency.<p>Again, legitimately hyper-niche solutions notwithstanding.<p>I don't know what the answer is, but it's worth contemplating what this means structurally. At least it's not completely vapid 'Social Influencing' and scammy value destroying Crypto/NFTs.