5 ms·

It's a very well done wrapper that improves your coding productivity a lot.

by xyzzy9563 1y ago

gruez 1y ago
The problem is that they have no moat and the underlying provider can easily cut them out.
- infecto 1y ago
  I think you underestimate the difficulty in getting the tool chain running efficiently in the IDE. It's a significant moat and I suspect their spend is too attractive to cut them off from an API especially when most of the model providers are not exactly competing fully in this space yet or at least not with the same enthusiasm.
  - dboreham 1y ago
    Interesting to see multiple posts here saying this. Pretty clearly it isn't true. The IDE is owned by Microsoft. The model is owned by Anthropic or Google or whoever. A business can't be made from a thin sandwich filling between the two.
    - infecto 1y ago
      Hey guys we have a guy here stating pretty clearly it isn’t true. He clearly is the authority on the topic because he said so. The shell of the IDE is open source. It’s true there is some risk on the supply of models and compute but again none of those, except MSFT which does not even own any of the SOTA models, have any direct competition. OpenAI has codex but it’s half baked and being bundled in ChatGPT. It is in nobodies interest to cut off Cursor as at this point they are a fairly sustained and large customer. The risk exists but feels pretty far fetched until someone is actively competing or Cursor gets bought out by a OpenAI. Again, what proof do you have that there is zero complexity or most being driven by the sandwich filling. Most of OpenAIs valuation is being driven by the wrapper ChatGPT not API usage. I have written a number of integrations with LLM APIs and while some of it just works, there is a lot of nuance to doing it effectively and efficiently at scale. If it was so simple why would we not see many other active competitors in this space with massive MAUs?
- xyzzy9563 1y ago
  Not really, it's pretty hard to get the editor and code editing via AI working as well as they did.
  - macrolime 1y ago
    If it's so hard, then why are there multiple open source projects that are just as good?
    - xyzzy9563 1y ago
      They're not just as good unless you are willing to spend huge amounts in API credits.
- yunwal 1y ago
  > and the underlying provider can easily cut them out what? Do you think providers (or their other customers) don’t care about the business implications of a decision like this? All so that cursor can bring their significant customer base to a nearly-indistinguishable competitor?

It's a very well done wrapper that improves your coding productivity a lot.

gruez 1y ago

The problem is that they have no moat and the underlying provider can easily cut them out.

infecto 1y ago
I think you underestimate the difficulty in getting the tool chain running efficiently in the IDE. It's a significant moat and I suspect their spend is too attractive to cut them off from an API especially when most of the model providers are not exactly competing fully in this space yet or at least not with the same enthusiasm.
- dboreham 1y ago
  Interesting to see multiple posts here saying this. Pretty clearly it isn't true. The IDE is owned by Microsoft. The model is owned by Anthropic or Google or whoever. A business can't be made from a thin sandwich filling between the two.
  - infecto 1y ago
    Hey guys we have a guy here stating pretty clearly it isn’t true. He clearly is the authority on the topic because he said so. The shell of the IDE is open source. It’s true there is some risk on the supply of models and compute but again none of those, except MSFT which does not even own any of the SOTA models, have any direct competition. OpenAI has codex but it’s half baked and being bundled in ChatGPT. It is in nobodies interest to cut off Cursor as at this point they are a fairly sustained and large customer. The risk exists but feels pretty far fetched until someone is actively competing or Cursor gets bought out by a OpenAI. Again, what proof do you have that there is zero complexity or most being driven by the sandwich filling. Most of OpenAIs valuation is being driven by the wrapper ChatGPT not API usage. I have written a number of integrations with LLM APIs and while some of it just works, there is a lot of nuance to doing it effectively and efficiently at scale. If it was so simple why would we not see many other active competitors in this space with massive MAUs?
xyzzy9563 1y ago
Not really, it's pretty hard to get the editor and code editing via AI working as well as they did.
- macrolime 1y ago
  If it's so hard, then why are there multiple open source projects that are just as good?
  - xyzzy9563 1y ago
    They're not just as good unless you are willing to spend huge amounts in API credits.
yunwal 1y ago
> and the underlying provider can easily cut them out what? Do you think providers (or their other customers) don’t care about the business implications of a decision like this? All so that cursor can bring their significant customer base to a nearly-indistinguishable competitor?