zlacker

>>swyx+(OP)
I'm skeptical about this VSCode fork commanding a $3 billion valuation when it depends on API services it doesn't own. What's their moat here?

For comparison, JetBrains generates over $400 million in annual revenue and is valued around $7 billion. They've built proprietary technology and deep expertise in that market over decades.

If AI (terminology aside) replaces many professional software engineers and programmers like some of its fierce advocates say it would, wouldn't their potential customer base shrink?

Professionals typically drive enterprise revenue, while hobbyists—who might become the primary users—generally don't support the same business model or spending levels.

What am I missing here?

>>retorn+j62
Part of what you're missing is that OpenAI needs to justify its own overinflated valuation. They raise money on the premise that an AI-native company can and will outcompete giant established players, so lowballing Windsurf would run counter to the narrative they're selling to their own investors.

>>lolind+u72
The article also doesn't say that it's $3B in cash that OpenAI is spending. They might be giving Windsurf $3B worth of OpenAI shares - paying an inflated value for Windsurf with their own inflated value.

OpenAI just had a fundraising round that put them at $300B. Maybe they're just giving Windsurf 1% of OpenAI. Maybe they're even giving less than 1% - if OpenAI was worth $300B at the end of March and $150B last October, maybe they're worth $400B now. Maybe Windsurf is getting 0.75% of OpenAI that's "valued" at $3B.

>>mdasen+Hc2
> OpenAI just had a fundraising round that put them at $300B. Maybe they're just giving Windsurf 1% of OpenAI

That is the most hilarious maths I have ever seen, if this is true then it's maybe the biggest "holy fuck it's a bubble all the way down" I have ever seen

>>jofzar+cd3
It is very likely that such a deal isn’t fully in cash. Maybe it’s 50/50, but probably a large part will be in stocks.