←back to thread

820 points rcchen | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.642s | source
Show context
extr ◴[] No.44537358[source]
IMO other than the Microsoft IP issue, I think the biggest thing that has shifted since this acquisition was first in the works is Claude Code has absolutely exploded. Forking an IDE and all the expense that comes with that feels like a waste of effort, considering the number of free/open source CLI agentic tools that are out there.

Let's review the current state of things:

- Terminal CLI agents are several orders of magnitude less $$$ to develop than forking an entire IDE.

- CC is dead simple to onboard (use whatever IDE you're using now, with a simple extension for some UX improvements).

- Anthropic is free to aggressively undercut their own API margins (and middlemen like Cursor) in exchange for more predictable subscription revenue + training data access.

What does Cursor/Windsurf offer over VS Code + CC?

- Tab completion model (Cursor's remaining moat)

- Some UI niceties like "add selection to chat", and etc.

Personally I think this is a harbinger of where things are going. Cursor was fastest to $900M ARR and IMO will be fastest back down again.

replies(41): >>44537388 #>>44537433 #>>44537440 #>>44537454 #>>44537465 #>>44537526 #>>44537594 #>>44537613 #>>44537619 #>>44537711 #>>44537749 #>>44537830 #>>44537848 #>>44537853 #>>44537964 #>>44538026 #>>44538053 #>>44538066 #>>44538259 #>>44538272 #>>44538316 #>>44538366 #>>44538384 #>>44538404 #>>44538553 #>>44538681 #>>44538894 #>>44538939 #>>44539043 #>>44539254 #>>44539528 #>>44540250 #>>44540304 #>>44540339 #>>44540409 #>>44541020 #>>44541176 #>>44541551 #>>44541786 #>>44542617 #>>44542673 #
adamoshadjivas ◴[] No.44537454[source]
Agreed on everything. Just to add, not only anthropic is offering CC at like a 500% loss, they restricted sonnet/opus 4 access to windsurf, and jacked up their enterprise deal to Cursor. The increase in price was so big that it forced cursor to make that disastrous downgrade to their plans.

I think only way Cursor and other UX wrappers still win is if on device models or at least open source models catch up in the next 2 years. Then i can see a big push for UX if models are truly a commodity. But as long as claude is much better then yes they hold all the cards. (And don't have a bigger company to have a civil war with like openai)

replies(8): >>44537599 #>>44537888 #>>44537928 #>>44540530 #>>44541463 #>>44541798 #>>44541868 #>>44542573 #
teruakohatu ◴[] No.44537888[source]
> CC at like a 500% loss

Do you have a citation for this?

It might be at a loss, but I don’t think it is that extravagant.

replies(3): >>44537924 #>>44539073 #>>44539146 #
csomar ◴[] No.44539146[source]
The way I am doing the math with my Max subscription and assuming DeepSeek API prices, it is still x5 times cheaper. So either DeepSeek is losing money (unlikely) or Anthropic is losing lots of money (more likely). Grok kinda confirms my suspicions. Assuming DeepSeek prices, I've probably spent north of $100 of Grok compute. I didn't pay Grok or Twitter a single cent. $100 is a lot of loss for a single user.
replies(3): >>44540032 #>>44540348 #>>44541807 #
tonyhart7 ◴[] No.44540032[source]
what?? sonnet/opus is way better than deepseek, how can you compare that to deepseek

also you probably talking about distilled deepseek model

replies(1): >>44540528 #
1. nurettin ◴[] No.44540528[source]
I haven't tried deepseek but I've seen claude do crazy things if you are at the correct random.seed
replies(1): >>44542834 #
2. Tokumei-no-hito ◴[] No.44542834[source]
what do you mean about correct random.seed?
replies(1): >>44542906 #
3. christina97 ◴[] No.44542906[source]
It means “if you’re unlucky”.