Did anyone really believe that companies would burn through billions in funding without trying to recover it and then some?
Kiro is collaborative, but SpecKit is a bunch of templates and then wishes you good luck in your journey. It honestly reminds me of those unified process templates, which I guess all of those are great if one needs some structure to organize ones thoughts
As an alternative, SpecKit is also 0.x release so maybe in 9 months it'll be useful - or overcome by whatever 'ooh, shiny!' follows it
I'm assuming I don't use AI as much as most devs as I'm still comfortably within Augment Code's 600 user messages/mo dev plan limit which IMO is great value for being able to use its Context Engine. If I ever exceeded that I'd likely temporarily switch to Qwen Coder's effectively unlimited free tier [1] until the next quota refill.
Not sure if Augment's going to increase their prices or downgrade their quotas since they're still at the whims of Claude Sonnet / GPT 5 API pricing, but if they do I'd be looking at moving to an open model solution like Open Code / Roo Code so I can easily switch to the best value coding models of the day, between Qwen3 coder, Grok Code Fast, GLM, Kimi K2, DeepSeek, etc we're spoilt for choice [2].
I switched from Cursor to Zed about five months ago. It’s a tradeoff of simplicity vs too many features that I’ve mostly been happy with. The last few days though, the “suggested” sonnet 4 model has gotten really slow.
Everything else that has usage costs, storage, compute, etc, is all pay per use (AWS, etc).
AI = Questionable results at high cost
The litmus test: Would you put AI in charge of your personal finances? Would you want your bank to do this?
If the answer is no, why put AI in charge of your company's finances?
https://thefintechtimes.com/ai-failures-can-happen-in-financ...
The problem for most (maybe all) AI coder companies is that they are a fundamentally bad business: they are reselling a commodity (tokens in/out) without a moat around the value they add.
The majority of these companies aren't even adding value, they're simply reselling the the underlying commodity.
I mean, if I were to use an analogy, I'd use coffee crop/beans/grounds/drinks:
The base product in the value chain (the beans) have zero value to the end-user (coffee drinkers). Each step between "coffee farmer" and "coffee drinker" adds a little bit of value to the output of that step.
Roasted beans have more value than raw beans. Ground beans have more value than Roasted beans. Instant coffee has more value than ground coffee. A cup of instant coffee purchased from a street vendor has more value than a bag of instant coffee purchased at the supermarket.
Where, exactly in all of the AI token reselling, is the value being added? A token purchased from Cursor, Kiro, etc has exactly the same value to the end user as a token purchased at the supplier (Anthropic, OpenAI, etc).
How exactly were they planning to monetise, other than by training their own model on every request/response going past them? There's no avenue to value-add here other than by using the actual requests/responses to create a "better" model!
And even then, the "better" model may only be insignificantly better, with almost-zero value add, so how are they going to capture that insignificant value-add?
Looking at all of this, even MBAs, widely denounced for running tech companies into the ground due to sheer incompetence, might actually do better here!
How's this different from the same playbook they're accusing other parties to play?
1. The Hook: we're honest!!!!
Come on.
petesergeant•4mo ago