←back to thread

883 points rcchen | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | 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(4): >>44537924 #>>44539073 #>>44539146 #>>44543537 #
resonious ◴[] No.44537924[source]
I'm also curious about this. Claude Code feels very expensive to me, but at the same time I don't have much perspective (nothing to compare it to, really, other than Codex or other agent editors I guess. And CC is way better so likely worth the extra money anyway)
replies(1): >>44538007 #
harikb ◴[] No.44538007[source]
I think GP is talking about Claude Code Max 100 & 200 plans. They are very reasonable compared to anything else that has per-use token usage.

I am on Max and I can work 5 hrs+ a day easily. It does fall back to Sonnet pretty fast, but I don't seem to notice any big differece.

replies(2): >>44538048 #>>44538683 #
e1g ◴[] No.44538048[source]
Yes, my CC usage is regularly $50-$100 per day, so their Max plan is absolutely great value that I don’t expect to last.
replies(4): >>44538359 #>>44538423 #>>44538898 #>>44542316 #
bilsbie ◴[] No.44538898[source]
Is there a cheap version for hobbyists? Or what’s the best thing for hobbyists to use, just cut and paste?
replies(6): >>44538974 #>>44539014 #>>44539022 #>>44539380 #>>44541876 #>>44543153 #
TeMPOraL ◴[] No.44539380[source]
Claude Code with a Claude subscription is the cheap version for current SOTA.

"Agentic" workflows burn through tokens like there's no tomorrow, and the new Opus model is so expensive per-token that the Max plan pays itself back in one or two days of moderate usage. When people reports their Claude Code sessions costing $100+ per day, I read that as the API price equivalent - it makes no sense to actually "pay as you go" with Claude right now.

This is arguably the cheapest option available on the market right now in terms of results per dollar, but only if you can afford the subscription itself. There's also time/value component here: on Max x5, it's quite easy to hit the usage limits of Opus (fortunately the limit is per 5 hours or so); Max x20 is only twice the price of Max x5 but gives you 4x more Opus; better model = less time spent fighting with and cleaning up after the AI. It's expensive to be poor, unfortunately.

replies(1): >>44541302 #
leptons ◴[] No.44541302[source]
>less time spent fighting with and cleaning up after the AI.

I've yet to use anything but copilot in vscode, which is 1/2 the time helpful, and 1/2 wasting my time. For me it's almost break-even, if I don't count the frustration it causes.

I've been reading all these AI-related comment sections and none of it is convincing me there is really anything better out there. AI seems like break-even at best, but usually it's just "fighting with and cleaning up after the AI", and I'm really not interested in doing any of that. I was a lot happier when I wasn't constantly being shown bad code that I need to read and decide about, when I'm perfectly capable of writing the code myself without the hasle of AI getting in my way.

AI burnout is probably already a thing, and I'm close to that point already. I do not have hope that it will get much better than it is, as the core of the tech is essentially just a guessing game.

replies(1): >>44542186 #
1. dgacmu ◴[] No.44542186[source]
I tend to agree except for one recent experience: I built a quick prototype of an application whose backend I had written twice before and finally wanted to do right. But the existing infrastructure for it had bit-rotted, and I am definitely not a UI person. Every time I dive into html+js I have to spend hours updating my years-out-of-date knowledge of how to do things.

So I vibe coded it. I was extremely specific about how the back end should operate and pretty vague about the UI, and basically everything worked.

But there were a few things about this one: first, it was just a prototype. I wanted to kick around some ideas quickly, and I didn't care at all about code quality. Second, I already knew exactly how to do the hard parts in the back end, so part of the prompt input was the architecture and mechanism that I wanted.

But it spat out that html app way way faster than I could have.