Buck retweeted
Given Anthropic's reported limitations on inference, it's pretty straightforward to imagine them competing directly with their API customers for the rest of 2026. OpenAI and Google could gain meaningful ecosystem share.
the number of live enterprise agents doing anything complex outside of Claude code/codex is virtually zero. big theme of next year.
The Cognition team released an article describing the challenges of building an in-house AI agent.
A big challenge is ensuring your agent can complete real work. Securely and at scale. That requires proper isolation and running agents in specialized machines.
The good news: if you run your agents on @e2b, you get over three years of work on this problem out of the box. Hard won lessons and integrated into your agent in an afternoon.
NOW exposure to AI growth is just marginal. token spend required to answer a support ticket low and only goes lower.
$NOW CEO on how companies are funding AI:
"What I'll tell you is that from a budget perspective, we're seeing it come from a lot of different places, right? It's not one place. A lot of people are funding it because labor budgets are coming down. A lot of people are reallocating technology spend and eliminating more point solutions and really leaning into platform consolidation and platforms like ServiceNow"
the universal narrative: across customers, investors, employees the narrative about a business becomes the same. when you are in a fight for control of your narrative you have to play dirty. be aggressive. guide aggressively into high short interest. over invest. ignore your CFO.
cursor is subsidizing tokens for customers and will stop doing that this summer, because they make no money. will be interesting to see what happens to growth at that point. bull case is it drives demand for their in-house model.
Cursor at -23% gross margin in January
$2.7B annualized revenue, up 14x YoY, expects $7B eoy
but Claude code caught up fast, hard for cursor to raise
xAI only at $3.2B 2025 rev, mostly twitter, really wants Cursors revenue
🍿 to see how it shakes out
theinformation.com/articles/…
Buck retweeted
As Anthropic launches more first party applications, there's clear opportunity for OpenAI (and Google) to expand their developer ecosystem. This played out with AWS vs Azure and GCP in the 2010s.
1. We believe in iterative deployment; although GPT-5.5 is already a smart model, we expect rapid improvements. Iterative deployment is a big part of our safety strategy; we believe the world will be best equipped to win at the team sport of AI resilience this way.
2. We believe in democratization. We want people to be able to use lots of AI; we aim to have the most efficient models, the most efficient inference stack, and the most compute. We want our users to have access to the best technology and for everyone to have equal opportunity. We have been tracking cybersecurity as a preparedness category for a long time, and have built mitigations we believe in that enable us to make capable models broadly available.
3. We love you and we want you to win. We want to be a platform for every company, scientist, entrepreneur, and person. (My whole career has largely been about the magic of startups, and I think we are about to see that magic at hyperscale.)
Buck retweeted
CODING: THE CANARY VERTICAL
Coding is the first AI vertical to hit escape velocity, and a preview of every market that follows. (In other words, it's the canary in the coal mine)
Coding got there first for a reason: it has the most objective feedback loop in any knowledge work category. Code runs or it doesn't. Tests pass or they fail. That signal richness is why models hit near-superhuman capability on code before law, finance, or medicine. And why developer tools were the first category where AI crossed from "interesting demo" to "I can't work without this."
The growth story is well known. The more interesting thing, IMO, is the collision.
Anthropic shipped Claude Code. OpenAI has Codex. Google with Gemini Code Assist. Every major lab now competes directly for the developer, with companies like Cursor, @FactoryAI, Cognition and other application layer startups.
The infrastructure layer and the application layer are now indistinguishable in software development. Foundation model companies started with model quality but built distribution. Application companies started with distribution and built their own models.
Every other vertical will go through the same arc: models get good enough, app companies find the right workflow wrapper, growth takes off, foundation model companies notice and build directly, app companies build their own models for defensibility. Legal is probably 12-18 months behind coding on this curve. Finance is similar. Healthcare is further out, because feedback loops are slower and regulation adds friction.
App companies that survive will look like Cursor or Factory: deep workflow integration, proprietary context, switching costs that outlast a model upgrade.
Founders building vertical AI companies: the foundation model companies are watching your category's growth curve. They will build what you're building once the market validates it. Become a deeply embedded product that truly runs your customer's business. Build the whole platform so you are irreplaceable before they arrive.
msft cognition like 80% chance by end of next yr
# The Path Forward for AI Startups
A lot of founders are messaging each other after the SpaceXAI <> Cursor “IPO-deferred acquisition”. Common discussion topic: what is the future for independent startups? Must ~everyone ultimately be acquired by a frontier lab or go extinct?
The data from our direct experience @cognition suggests the opposite. The more startups in a category that defect from independent competition by selling to a lab, the stronger the remaining ones become. We experienced this firsthand last year with Windsurf. When the founders went to Google and we acquired the remaining company, it dramatically accelerated our product roadmap and GTM. Now, cloud agents are ready for prime time, and our usage has exploded. (We’re in the fastest rate of usage growth in Cognition’s history - almost 50% month-over-month growth in Devin enterprise.) We already see the next round of acceleration with yesterday’s news, from prospects and customers to candidate inbound.
In just about every category, there’s a clear market for a winning independent offering that’s not tied to models from any one lab. Especially in a space as dynamic as software engineering, where customers value model flexibility as the rankings from different providers are constantly changing.
For startups to seize that independence opportunity, here are the lessons we’ve learned so far:
1. DIFFERENTIATION
You need to have extremely clear differentiation vs. what’s already offered by the labs. Cursor had stiff competition from Claude Code in self-serve, in part because one tool was substitutable for the other, which presented a challenge.
Our approach has been to differentiate heavily for enterprises, which is the largest market for software engineering. Specifically:
1. We invest as much in forward deployed engineering and AI enablement as we do in core R&D. Our customers treat us as a change management partner, not just an AI software engineering platform. We run 1000-person workshops all around the world to help train developers inside companies on frontier AI adoption. We target specific use cases and outcomes in addition to providing developer tooling.
2. We focus on accelerating the *entire software development lifecycle* at large company scale, not just the writing of code. Devins now spin up automatically for everything from ticket scoping to DeepWiki codebase indexing to security vulnerability remediation and application monitoring alert response.
3. We eat the pain of deployment complexity to work well in the largest and most complex environments imaginable. Cognition can run inside a customer’s virtual private cloud, has a permissioning and team collaboration model that can scale to 100,000+ developers inside one company, runs as well for COBOL mainframes as it does for modern Python. From day 1 each Devin ran in a microVM on its own machine, vs running locally as a CLI tool, which allows arbitrary horizontal scaling and is a better fit for event-driven automation.
Of course, one element of startup differentiation will always be model independence. This is particularly powerful in large enterprises, who value supplier continuity and the ability to centralize tooling without taking on the business risk that they committed to the wrong foundation model. And useful for individual developers, who always want to try the latest models. (If you haven’t yet tried the Windsurf 2.0 release which came out last week, it’s a good day to give it a shot!)
I expect the labs will catch up on some of these fronts at some point. But at that point, we’ll have already made the next leap in differentiation, because…
2. FOCUS
You won’t outcompete the labs in everything, but you can outcompete the labs in *your* thing. Every application domain has fractal complexity at the edges. Lean in to what makes your domain special and offer things no one else can. Does it make sense for a lab to devote training resources to a specialized code review model? Probably not - they’re working on AGI. But for the 3-6 month window where the latest frontier models don’t solve that use case at acceptable performance, cost, or latency, do it yourself and build a better product experience than would otherwise be possible. Rinse and repeat as the frontier of what’s possible via specialization continues to evolve.
3. VELOCITY
One of our values at Cognition is: “Every second counts.” Maniacal urgency helps in every startup, but it counts extra in today’s accelerated AI times where advantages compound faster than before. With sufficient focus, you can out-accelerate the AI labs on any one specific feature or workflow. Do this consistently to stretch the overhang of what’s enabled by each new generations of models, and you can maintain your edge on a differentiated product experience.
-
In many ways the SpaceXAI <> Cursor news is a win for everyone. SpaceX gets a new research team and the chance to become competitive in coding. Cursor gets a meaningful exit and the opportunity to accelerate their research roadmap with much more compute. And the whole ecosystem benefits from increased competitiveness among the foundation model labs. Congrats to the teams on the outcome.















