I think it’s a lot less exhausting now that the IDE part is mostly decoupled. I can’t imagine cursor continuing to compete when really all they’re doing is selling tokens either a markup, and hence crushing your context on every call. Sorry if that sounds negative but it’s true.
I use CC and codex somewhat interchangeably, but I have to agree with the comments. Codex is a compete monster, and there really isn’t any competition right now.
Sorry to be that guy, but think there's a decent chance that the people who make possibly the most complicated technology in human history save for the LHC or LIGO _might_ have done some thinking we can't wrap our heads around.
EDIT: I think the below is correct, but I’ve just seen in the main product landing page that for a certain benchmark it’s an order of magnitude cheaper AND faster than AWS glue, so that’s the target market by the looks of things.
——
I don’t think so - probably more in the realms of spark and, based on the roadmap, airflow.
For me it would be about doing big data analytics / dashboarding / ML or DS data prep.
My understanding is that Snowflake plays a lot in the data warehouse/lakehouse space, so is more central to data ops / cataloguing / SSOT type work.
But hey that’s all first impressions from the press release.
moreso competing with Coiled Computing (Dask version, very similar, you can run Polars there too). and then Databricks more than Snowflake, but all of these data platforms converge on similar features. also competing with Fivetran eventually after their acquisition yesterday
I usually agree with this, but I make an exception for Pudding because they consistently do this and it’s kind of their brand to have really immersive JS art/media. But I have the benefit of having read and enjoyed their stuff before.
It’s probably a false distinction, but it feels different to a SaaS product offering page, or product launch, where I need to get information, compared to someone using JS to create art.
This whole article could be summarised in about 300 words, but I would have had very little emotional or conceptual enjoyment of it.
Google basically invented modern AI (the 'T' in ChatGPT stands for Transformer), then took a very broad view of how to apply broadly neural AI - AlphaGo, AlphaGenome being the kind of non-LLM stuff they've done).
A better way to look at it is that the absolute number 1 priority for google since they first created a money spiggot throguh monetising high-intent search and got the monopoly on it (outside of Amazon) has been to hold on to that. Even YT (the second biggest search engine on the internet other than google itself) is high intent search leading to advertising sales conversion.
So yes, google has adopted and killed lots of products, but for its big bets (web 2.0 / android / chrome) it's basically done everything it can to ensure it keeps it's insanely high revenue and margin search business going.
What it has to show for it is basically being the only company to have transitioned as dominent across technological eras (desktop -> web2.0 -> mobile -> (maybe llm).
As good as OpenAI is as a standalone, and as good as Claude / Claude Code is for developers, google has over 70% mobile market share with android, nearly 70% browser market share with chrome - this is a huge moat when it comes to integration.
You can also be very bullish about other possible trends. For AI - they are the only big provider which has a persistent hold on user data for training. Yes, OpenAI and Grok have a lot of their own data, but google has ALL gmail, high intent search queries, youtube videos and captions, etc.
And for AR/VR, android is a massive sleeping giant - no one will want to move wholesale into a Meta OS experience, and Apple are increasingly looking like they'll need to rely on google for high performance AI stuff.
All of this protects google's search business a lot.
Don't get me wrong, on the small stuff google is happy to let their people use 10% time to come up with a cool app which they'll kill after a couple of years, but for their big bets, every single time they've gone after something they have a lot to show for it where it counts to them.
Yeah, and Google has cared deeply about AI as a long term play since before they were public. And have been continuously invested there over the long haul.
The small stuff that they kill is just that--small stuff that was never important to them strategically.
I mean, sure, don't heavily invest (your attention, time, business focus, whatever) in something that is likely to be small to Google, unless you want to learn from their prototypes, while they do.
But to pretend that Google isn't capable of sustained intense strategic focus is to ignore what's clearly visible.
This is a great resource. I just think the term “landlord” is a misnomer here. It implies you’ll be making income off the rent of your new self-administered infra, and as has been pointed out already - mostly this site pertains to stuff built on hyperscaler platforms.
I’d probably say “…internet homeowners where, like in the UK leasehold property system, you’re still basically a tenant but without paying someone else’s mortgage, and even when you’re a freeholder the king actually still more or less owns the land”.
No, hoarding is accumulating for the sake of accumulating. A housing provider offers a service, 12 month leases on places to live temporarily. It is a cutthroat low margin business, very few people are truly getting rich being small time providers, most are just breaking even and banking on their asset appreciation.
It is a “service” that is way cheaper than owning a home, not everyone wants to be a homeowner and pay massive maintenance costs. That burden is handled by the provider.
Why is it cheaper than owning a home? Because landlords are driving up the price of homes by using an essential human right as speculative asset and investment class.
The burden is imposed by the "provider", as a result of their greed.
I would have liked to have seen the underlying token count, and the full responses as an optional filter. My understanding is that under the hood the GPT-5 response (as well as omitted O model responses) would end with the presented output, but would have had many paragraphs of “The user wants X, so I should try to Y. Okay this z needs to be considered” etc.
It doesn’t detract from the progress, but I think it would change how you interpret it. In some ways 4 / 4o were more impressive because they were going straight to output with a lower number of tokens produced to get a good response.
I think it’s fundamentally about context management and business model. Claude Code is expensive because it will happily put very large volumes into context because Anthropic are paid by the token. Cursor makes the bet that it can pay less per token whilst giving you enough value to still make margins on your $20 per month (assuming you’re using their default models).
This all becomes very clear when you do something that feels like magic in Claude Code and then run /cost and see you’ve blown through $10 in a single hour long session. Which is honestly worth it for me.
Roo Code manages context a LOT better than Cursor or Windsurf. Cursor and Windsurf don't care about this because they want people to use more tokens. Their investors want more people to use tokens.
Think about this one. They don't even tell you what your usage is! Look at Roo Code showing you the context usage and cost of each conversation. Features to compact the context. It's built around bringing awareness to the unit economics of AI and built to give users choice. The tools that work to keep users in the dark are serving someone else's interests.
I use CC and codex somewhat interchangeably, but I have to agree with the comments. Codex is a compete monster, and there really isn’t any competition right now.