zlacker

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.

>>re-thc+(OP)
I say don't muddy the water with the public panic over "will it won't it" bubble burst predictions.

The effective demand for Opus 4.5 is bottomless; the models will only get better.

People will always want a code model as good as we have now, let alone better.

Bun securing default status in the best coding model is a win-win-win

>>re-thc+(OP)
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.

>>re-thc+(OP)
Yeah that’s the main part that puzzled me, super happy for the team that they got a successful exit, but I wouldn’t really consider Anthropic’s situation to be stable…

>>phanta+U
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.

>>ricopa+F
> I say don't muddy the water with the public panic over "will it won't it" bubble burst predictions.

It does matter. The public ultimately determines how much they get in funding if at all.

> The effective demand for Opus 4.5 is bottomless; the models will only get better.

The demand for the Internet is bottomless. Doesn't mean Dotcom didn't crash.

There are lots of scenarios this can play out, e.g. Anthropic fails to raise a certain round because money dried up. OpenAI buys Anthropic but decides they don't need Bun and closes out the project.

>>supern+J2
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.

>>ricopa+F
Opus 4.5 is not living in vacuum. It’s the most expensive of models for coders and there is Gemini 3 pro - with many discounts and deepseek 3.2 that is 50x cheaper and not much behind.

>>supern+J2
> 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.

Is there any historical precedent of someone doing that?

>>little+fF
I think by the time these things tend to happen, projects have outgrown their singular founder and usually have a large developer community (because issues usually take a long time to bubble up after an acquisition). So, it's hard to find a specific case of the founder driving the fork.

Monty forking MySQL after the Oracle acquisition is the only real example that comes to mind. Oracle being Oracle resulted in OpenOffice getting forked, too, but that was mostly driven by Canonical.