zlacker

[return to "Anthropic acquires Bun"]
1. re-thc+Z2[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:21:04
>>ryanvo+(OP)
Congrats...

> Long-term stability. a home and resources so people can safely bet their stack on Bun.

Isn't it the opposite? Now we've tied Bun to "AI" and if the AI bubble or hype or whatever bursts or dies down it'd impact Bun.

> We had over 4 years of runway to figure out monetization. We didn't have to join Anthropic.

There's honestly a higher chance of Bun sticking out that runway than the current AI hype still being around.

Nothing against Anthropic but with the circular financing, all the debt, OpenAI's spending and over-valuations "AI" is the riskier bet than Bun and hosting.

◧◩
2. phanta+T3[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:25:00
>>re-thc+Z2
Yeah, no reader of tech news will take an acquisition of a company with four years of runway as anything but decreasing the odds their product will still be around (and useful to the same audience…) in four years. Even without being tied to a company with lots of exposure to a probable bubble.
◧◩◪
3. supern+I5[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:30:47
>>phanta+T3
How so? Presumably Jarred got a nice enough payout that if Anthropic failed, he would not need to work. At that point, he's more than welcome to take the fully MIT licensed Bun and fork it to start another company or just continue to work on it himself if he so chooses.
◧◩◪◨
4. phanta+Y6[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:36:16
>>supern+I5
History?

I didn’t say it was definitely the end or definitely would end up worse, just that someone who’s followed tech news for a while is unlikely to take this as increasing the odds Bun survives mid-term. If the company was in trouble anyway, sure, maybe, but not if they still had fourish years in the bank.

“Acquired product thriving four years later” isn’t unheard of, but it’s not what you expect. The norm is the product’s dead or stagnant and dying by then.

[go to top]