9 ms·

I’ve been a WindSurf customer since day one. It was my first true AI agentic experience. [Dev mode] While working on Alembic migrations I broke one of my migra

I’ve been a WindSurf customer since day one. It was my first true AI agentic experience. [Dev mode] While working on Alembic migrations I broke one of my migration files. After an hour of manual debugging I handed the task to WindSurf. It methodically checked every config file, applied the migrations one by one, and narrowed the issue to a single file. It rewrote the migration, verified the fix, wrote tests, ensured everything passed, and opened a PR. I reviewed it and it worked flawlessly. Regarding the acquisition I don’t understand why OAI would pay $3 B. The team is strong, they have lots of data, and the agentic flow is great, but all of that feels commoditized. Claude Code launched two months ago and I prefer it to WindSurf, Cursor, and Aider. Augment Code also ranks above WindSurf for me. If I were in Sam’s place I would have doubled or tripled down on Codex CLI. Just my 2 cents.

adventured 1y ago
They're paying $3 billion because money is hyper plentiful for OpenAI at present. Basically because they can. Money isn't their problem right now, it's not a scarce resource (maybe it will be in the future of course). They're trying to capture and lock-in, so as the hurdles and regulations go up they're one of the huge winners left standing. Try replacing Uber today, it's impossible. Nobody is going to give you billions of dollars to try to do it. It'd be an absolute nightmare to attempt it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  Uber has already been replaced, at least in some parts of the world. We recently went on holiday to Malta and on check-in the hotel staff told us not to bother with Uber, Bolt worked way better and had more drivers (Bolt is a European Uber competitor based in Estonia). So we signed up for Bolt and sure enough drivers were plentiful, the app worked great and there was no downside over Uber. I'll certainly be trying it again in future in other markets. The reason Uber invested in self-driving cars for years is that otherwise they have no sustainable edge. It's just a taxi company, which is a low margin business. People who can make slick mobile apps are plentiful and it takes a minute or less to sign up for a new service. Uber grew to its current size by buying market share using investors dollars, which was always a time-limited strategy. Once they started having to turn a profit prices rose and their edge over their competitors was lost.
  - petesergeant 1y ago
    Uber feels like such an apt comparison to OpenAI to me. The service they provide is obviously going to be absolutely huge, but no guarantees at all that they’ll win it or be last man standing. I don’t see a world in which generative AI doesn’t continue to be a massive disrupting force, but no particular reason to think Anthropic or OpenAI will still be independent entities in a few years. I’m even more bearish on Uber than I used to be, as someone who’s used Grab and Careem and Bolt extensively, and seen Uber have to beat a retreat from SE Asia. If their more nimble competition get a foothold in the US they’re toast.
    - saalweachter 1y ago
      I feel like the value-proposition of Uber was three-fold. 1. Solving a pain-point of many people re: hailing a cab, via an app that works everywhere. 2. Using VC funds to (initially) pay drivers more than you, the customer, were paying them. 3. Ignoring local regulations and passing the savings/convenience on to you. 1 is nice but I don't think they established much of a moat (both drivers and customers are willing to use multiple apps); 2 isn't sustainable in the long-term, and they failed to leverage 3 to establishing a permanent right to operate as they had been in most markets. I think this makes Uber an even more interesting benchmark for other unicorns, since besides "solving a real problem without establishing a moat" they are also often burning through VC cash to prop up their business model while ignoring some laws which they may not be able to get away with ignoring long-term.
      - datadrivenangel 1y ago
        1 especially is a social function. Having to have a million different apps is terrible, but if there is too much competition for drivers it's inevitable to churn through apps because of marketplace pricing and rent seeking on all sides
moeadham 1y ago
sometimes companies are acquired for things the public has not yet seen.
- johntarter 1y ago
  Companies are acquired for customer base, ARPU, and growth. Same criteria as when when raising funding.
  - jahewson 1y ago
    Those are the best reasons, but companies are also acquired for marketing, hype, to relieve a sense of fear, to curry favour, etc…
  - jillesvangurp 1y ago
    I don't think that's the case here. Windsurf wasn't leading the agentic coding market. They were doing a decent job but others are bigger. Cursor has the brand recognition and Claude is getting a lot of recognition too. MS has github copilot which is still a good brand and Google has been catching up with Gemini. OpenAI has a new thing called codex but it isn't very good yet. I tried it and it's super flaky. Lot's of errors and it gets stuck when that happens. OpenAI needs something good urgently because agentic coding is the key AI feature right now and the blue print for non coding agentic solutions later. Cursor is probably too expensive currently and windsurf looks like their models are a bit better. So, OpenAI gains something they don't have: a credible developer option with an active user base and some core IP in the form of training data and know how as well as custom models that they can fold into openai. 3 billion is a lot but not if you consider that world + dog in the enterprise world will be spending big time on AI subscriptions for their developers. This stops being optional in 2025. Millions of developers will be on paid subscriptions permanently very soon. If you start a new job you can expect to get a laptop and a paid subscription to whatever is the agentic coding tool of choice in your new company. OpenAI wants double digit percentages of that revenue. 1M users paying something like 50$/month would amount to 600M revenue per year. I think the prices will go up and the amount of active users as well. Reason: as these tools are getting better they start saving non trivial amounts of engineering time. At that point you have to value the tool in terms of developer cost. Not 1 to 1. But it's worth a sizable portion of that. I work in a small startup as the CTO. This is an no-brainer for us. We're cash strapped so we only spend on important things. This would be one of those things. We're doing things I previously would have needed to expand the team for because I would have had no capacity to do those things in the current team. So, in terms of value for money spending on these tools is easy to justify. I get lots of people are skeptical about AI stuff here. But I would say that a lot of those people suffer from a short term focus and bias. Three years ago none of this stuff existed. Now it's a multi billion$ market that is set to grow rapidly. Stuff is getting better at a very rapid pace. Just stating facts here. 3 billion is a bargain if Openai can make this acquisition work for them. They are buying time to market here. They don't have a year to figure it out. In a year or so this market will be carved up and locked into hard to change year long SAAS contracts. At that point getting people to switch tools will get harder and harder.
anonzzzies 1y ago
> WindSurf, Cursor, and Aider. Augment Code also ranks above WindSurf for me. Bring on (a lot) more competition! I am waiting for the point where "Simple Pricing" (Augment Code has that on the pricing page) means fixed pricing; Simple is NOT '600 messages included' because it's impossible to know what the ROI from those 600 messages is, so it's very far from 'Simple' (many of those prompts will deliver nothing or, worse, having to rollback because the agent produced garbage). I know it's not sustainable, but the only thing that will keep me not jumping from one to the other, signing up with different emails, trials, coupons etc is if they will lose the restrictions on usage. They will, as they have to compete and it's worth it seeing this acquisition; losing 10s of millions a month to get/keep people and getting nice growth is what they do to get the billions. So bring it on!
bingemaker 1y ago
Is there a writeup or a recording. Would be nice to follow through
jjallen 1y ago
Because they have users and OpenAI has seen the massive drop off in coding usage since Claude Code came out. My personal Chatgpt decline is at least 99%. It’s also 1% of their current market value. So not really a big deal.
dayjah 1y ago
I was involved in an M&A once; my role was to evaluate the technology and determine how long it would take us to build a competitive product. If it was less than some X then we’d build it, greater than X and we’d buy. The function for X was not clear to me from my perspective; it had legal fees involved, etc. The person leading M&A said an intangible aspect of the price is what it does to the adjacent market. If the leading product A is valued during a raise at $Y, and you buy the next best product B at 1/10 that, you cause future issues with raises for A. Might this be an attempt to clip Cursors wings?
- pc86 1y ago
  That's a really interesting thought, I'd love to get involved in software PE/M&A on the technical analysis side but I don't have the academic pedigree for it (it seems every shop that does this work is 90% Ivy and Ivy-adjacent universities and FAANG-level work history). So if I'm understanding your point then part of the value in paying $3B for Windsurf is that it acts as a pricing anchor on future raises (and presumably acquisitions as well) for competing products? So Cursor is less likely to raise at a $30B valuation if Windsurf is 95% as good and just sold for 1/10 that.
  - whatshisface 1y ago
    The insanity of it all is that these companies are worth about $3M.
  - dayjah 1y ago
    You have superbly summarized the point I was trying to make regarding valuations. Regarding your other point about pedigree: I’ve a high school level education. I was considered senior at this specific co. as I had played an important role in building the product (I’m a “classic case” of self taught generalist). I’m not at all clear on how I was selected to take part in that effort to be frank. It was fun.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarian 1y ago
boringg 1y ago
If he's (Sam) trading equity on a grossly inflated OpenAI for the acquisition then he's likely not paying real money for the company and thus he is expanding his roadmap for cheap.
neets 1y ago
It’s probably those big Fortune 500 corporate customers and getting a look inside their code bases or at least get to know their use cases
shift8 1y ago
I think it was foolish to buy it for so much money to be honest. I'm not sure how large its user base is, but that's more than likely something to do with it. Remember that none of these tools can survive forever. Exiting was EXTREMELY smart of the founders here. Incredibly smart. I'd F off into the sunset now myself. The reason is because they are built on top of VS Code and use Claude. So OpenAI can switch the LLM, cool, but at the end of the day there's no moat for the Cursors and Windsurfs of the world. OpenAI has the keys here because they have the proprietary LLM. This doesn't mean OpenAI will survive btw. I think Google will awkwardly win this race. They're so so so awkward though it'll take some time. It's painful to watch, but because they have the user base, they'll win. Hold that thought for a moment. So new tools like Cursor and Windsurf will pop up all the time and do you think Microsoft will just sit by and watch? Nope. They'll update VS Code and Copilot and voila, the pendulum shift. As quickly as Cursor and Windsurf gained users, they'll lose them all again back to VS Code and Copilot. Copilot does indeed index your entire codebase - a rumor or misunderstanding by people. So as the dust settles, we'll see this change in usage. As LLMs trade places, we'll have a revolving door of fanbois and people arguing about what's better. What a rollercoaster. What's really interesting here is that I think we're going to see a LOT of litigation. Back to Google. Look at what's happening with Google Chrome. Some genius thought they were in violation of anti-trust laws (well maybe they are). The reality is they are about to make it WAY WAY WORSE because Google Chrome was open source and should someone buy Chrome and decide they don't want to share...Well bye bye funding to virtual every other web browser. Congratulations brilliant legal system, you created a monopoly. It just wasn't Google's monopoly so I suppose that's alright. So what I would bet is going to happen here is we're going to see OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, etc. all start to mess with one another here in a similar fashion. It's all going to be lobbying and legal battles. All over the place. It's going to make for an incredibly turbulent landscape. This is a very very expensive game. THIS is why we're talking $3B. Someone is looking to protect something. It's not because of value. To think about it as a business value somewhere is wrong. Windsurf and Cursor aren't worth billions. Are you out of your mind? There's no justifiable way any rational human being would think that. When they're built on top of other tech and have absolutely no defensible position?? Heck no. It's not about their value individually, it's about their added value to these other companies. It's about bet placing. It's about protecting a larger business. Take a moment to think what the world would look like if OpenAI must remain an open source business and or had to divest ChatGPT. They get Screwgoogled. Now ask why they're going to gobble up other businesses and why they keep raising all this money. I still think it's foolish, but it definitely seems like an existential threat that's lurking in there to me.

adventured 1y ago

They're paying $3 billion because money is hyper plentiful for OpenAI at present. Basically because they can. Money isn't their problem right now, it's not a scarce resource (maybe it will be in the future of course). They're trying to capture and lock-in, so as the hurdles and regulations go up they're one of the huge winners left standing. Try replacing Uber today, it's impossible. Nobody is going to give you billions of dollars to try to do it. It'd be an absolute nightmare to attempt it.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mike_hearn 1y ago
Uber has already been replaced, at least in some parts of the world. We recently went on holiday to Malta and on check-in the hotel staff told us not to bother with Uber, Bolt worked way better and had more drivers (Bolt is a European Uber competitor based in Estonia). So we signed up for Bolt and sure enough drivers were plentiful, the app worked great and there was no downside over Uber. I'll certainly be trying it again in future in other markets. The reason Uber invested in self-driving cars for years is that otherwise they have no sustainable edge. It's just a taxi company, which is a low margin business. People who can make slick mobile apps are plentiful and it takes a minute or less to sign up for a new service. Uber grew to its current size by buying market share using investors dollars, which was always a time-limited strategy. Once they started having to turn a profit prices rose and their edge over their competitors was lost.
- petesergeant 1y ago
  Uber feels like such an apt comparison to OpenAI to me. The service they provide is obviously going to be absolutely huge, but no guarantees at all that they’ll win it or be last man standing. I don’t see a world in which generative AI doesn’t continue to be a massive disrupting force, but no particular reason to think Anthropic or OpenAI will still be independent entities in a few years. I’m even more bearish on Uber than I used to be, as someone who’s used Grab and Careem and Bolt extensively, and seen Uber have to beat a retreat from SE Asia. If their more nimble competition get a foothold in the US they’re toast.
  - saalweachter 1y ago
    I feel like the value-proposition of Uber was three-fold. 1. Solving a pain-point of many people re: hailing a cab, via an app that works everywhere. 2. Using VC funds to (initially) pay drivers more than you, the customer, were paying them. 3. Ignoring local regulations and passing the savings/convenience on to you. 1 is nice but I don't think they established much of a moat (both drivers and customers are willing to use multiple apps); 2 isn't sustainable in the long-term, and they failed to leverage 3 to establishing a permanent right to operate as they had been in most markets. I think this makes Uber an even more interesting benchmark for other unicorns, since besides "solving a real problem without establishing a moat" they are also often burning through VC cash to prop up their business model while ignoring some laws which they may not be able to get away with ignoring long-term.
    - datadrivenangel 1y ago
      1 especially is a social function. Having to have a million different apps is terrible, but if there is too much competition for drivers it's inevitable to churn through apps because of marketplace pricing and rent seeking on all sides

moeadham 1y ago

sometimes companies are acquired for things the public has not yet seen.

johntarter 1y ago
Companies are acquired for customer base, ARPU, and growth. Same criteria as when when raising funding.
- jahewson 1y ago
  Those are the best reasons, but companies are also acquired for marketing, hype, to relieve a sense of fear, to curry favour, etc…
- jillesvangurp 1y ago
  I don't think that's the case here. Windsurf wasn't leading the agentic coding market. They were doing a decent job but others are bigger. Cursor has the brand recognition and Claude is getting a lot of recognition too. MS has github copilot which is still a good brand and Google has been catching up with Gemini. OpenAI has a new thing called codex but it isn't very good yet. I tried it and it's super flaky. Lot's of errors and it gets stuck when that happens. OpenAI needs something good urgently because agentic coding is the key AI feature right now and the blue print for non coding agentic solutions later. Cursor is probably too expensive currently and windsurf looks like their models are a bit better. So, OpenAI gains something they don't have: a credible developer option with an active user base and some core IP in the form of training data and know how as well as custom models that they can fold into openai. 3 billion is a lot but not if you consider that world + dog in the enterprise world will be spending big time on AI subscriptions for their developers. This stops being optional in 2025. Millions of developers will be on paid subscriptions permanently very soon. If you start a new job you can expect to get a laptop and a paid subscription to whatever is the agentic coding tool of choice in your new company. OpenAI wants double digit percentages of that revenue. 1M users paying something like 50$/month would amount to 600M revenue per year. I think the prices will go up and the amount of active users as well. Reason: as these tools are getting better they start saving non trivial amounts of engineering time. At that point you have to value the tool in terms of developer cost. Not 1 to 1. But it's worth a sizable portion of that. I work in a small startup as the CTO. This is an no-brainer for us. We're cash strapped so we only spend on important things. This would be one of those things. We're doing things I previously would have needed to expand the team for because I would have had no capacity to do those things in the current team. So, in terms of value for money spending on these tools is easy to justify. I get lots of people are skeptical about AI stuff here. But I would say that a lot of those people suffer from a short term focus and bias. Three years ago none of this stuff existed. Now it's a multi billion$ market that is set to grow rapidly. Stuff is getting better at a very rapid pace. Just stating facts here. 3 billion is a bargain if Openai can make this acquisition work for them. They are buying time to market here. They don't have a year to figure it out. In a year or so this market will be carved up and locked into hard to change year long SAAS contracts. At that point getting people to switch tools will get harder and harder.

anonzzzies 1y ago

> WindSurf, Cursor, and Aider. Augment Code also ranks above WindSurf for me. Bring on (a lot) more competition! I am waiting for the point where "Simple Pricing" (Augment Code has that on the pricing page) means fixed pricing; Simple is NOT '600 messages included' because it's impossible to know what the ROI from those 600 messages is, so it's very far from 'Simple' (many of those prompts will deliver nothing or, worse, having to rollback because the agent produced garbage). I know it's not sustainable, but the only thing that will keep me not jumping from one to the other, signing up with different emails, trials, coupons etc is if they will lose the restrictions on usage. They will, as they have to compete and it's worth it seeing this acquisition; losing 10s of millions a month to get/keep people and getting nice growth is what they do to get the billions. So bring it on!

bingemaker 1y ago

Is there a writeup or a recording. Would be nice to follow through

jjallen 1y ago

Because they have users and OpenAI has seen the massive drop off in coding usage since Claude Code came out. My personal Chatgpt decline is at least 99%. It’s also 1% of their current market value. So not really a big deal.

dayjah 1y ago

I was involved in an M&A once; my role was to evaluate the technology and determine how long it would take us to build a competitive product. If it was less than some X then we’d build it, greater than X and we’d buy. The function for X was not clear to me from my perspective; it had legal fees involved, etc. The person leading M&A said an intangible aspect of the price is what it does to the adjacent market. If the leading product A is valued during a raise at $Y, and you buy the next best product B at 1/10 that, you cause future issues with raises for A. Might this be an attempt to clip Cursors wings?

pc86 1y ago
That's a really interesting thought, I'd love to get involved in software PE/M&A on the technical analysis side but I don't have the academic pedigree for it (it seems every shop that does this work is 90% Ivy and Ivy-adjacent universities and FAANG-level work history). So if I'm understanding your point then part of the value in paying $3B for Windsurf is that it acts as a pricing anchor on future raises (and presumably acquisitions as well) for competing products? So Cursor is less likely to raise at a $30B valuation if Windsurf is 95% as good and just sold for 1/10 that.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  The insanity of it all is that these companies are worth about $3M.
- dayjah 1y ago
  You have superbly summarized the point I was trying to make regarding valuations. Regarding your other point about pedigree: I’ve a high school level education. I was considered senior at this specific co. as I had played an important role in building the product (I’m a “classic case” of self taught generalist). I’m not at all clear on how I was selected to take part in that effort to be frank. It was fun.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
foobarian 1y ago

boringg 1y ago

If he's (Sam) trading equity on a grossly inflated OpenAI for the acquisition then he's likely not paying real money for the company and thus he is expanding his roadmap for cheap.

neets 1y ago

It’s probably those big Fortune 500 corporate customers and getting a look inside their code bases or at least get to know their use cases

shift8 1y ago

I think it was foolish to buy it for so much money to be honest. I'm not sure how large its user base is, but that's more than likely something to do with it. Remember that none of these tools can survive forever. Exiting was EXTREMELY smart of the founders here. Incredibly smart. I'd F off into the sunset now myself. The reason is because they are built on top of VS Code and use Claude. So OpenAI can switch the LLM, cool, but at the end of the day there's no moat for the Cursors and Windsurfs of the world. OpenAI has the keys here because they have the proprietary LLM. This doesn't mean OpenAI will survive btw. I think Google will awkwardly win this race. They're so so so awkward though it'll take some time. It's painful to watch, but because they have the user base, they'll win. Hold that thought for a moment. So new tools like Cursor and Windsurf will pop up all the time and do you think Microsoft will just sit by and watch? Nope. They'll update VS Code and Copilot and voila, the pendulum shift. As quickly as Cursor and Windsurf gained users, they'll lose them all again back to VS Code and Copilot. Copilot does indeed index your entire codebase - a rumor or misunderstanding by people. So as the dust settles, we'll see this change in usage. As LLMs trade places, we'll have a revolving door of fanbois and people arguing about what's better. What a rollercoaster. What's really interesting here is that I think we're going to see a LOT of litigation. Back to Google. Look at what's happening with Google Chrome. Some genius thought they were in violation of anti-trust laws (well maybe they are). The reality is they are about to make it WAY WAY WORSE because Google Chrome was open source and should someone buy Chrome and decide they don't want to share...Well bye bye funding to virtual every other web browser. Congratulations brilliant legal system, you created a monopoly. It just wasn't Google's monopoly so I suppose that's alright. So what I would bet is going to happen here is we're going to see OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, etc. all start to mess with one another here in a similar fashion. It's all going to be lobbying and legal battles. All over the place. It's going to make for an incredibly turbulent landscape. This is a very very expensive game. THIS is why we're talking $3B. Someone is looking to protect something. It's not because of value. To think about it as a business value somewhere is wrong. Windsurf and Cursor aren't worth billions. Are you out of your mind? There's no justifiable way any rational human being would think that. When they're built on top of other tech and have absolutely no defensible position?? Heck no. It's not about their value individually, it's about their added value to these other companies. It's about bet placing. It's about protecting a larger business. Take a moment to think what the world would look like if OpenAI must remain an open source business and or had to divest ChatGPT. They get Screwgoogled. Now ask why they're going to gobble up other businesses and why they keep raising all this money. I still think it's foolish, but it definitely seems like an existential threat that's lurking in there to me.