AI ‘vibe coding' startups burst onto scene with sky-high valuations
NEW YORK, NY :Two years after the launch of ChatGPT, return on investment in generative AI has been elusive, but one area stands out: software development.
So-called code generation or 'code-gen' startups are commanding sky-high valuations as corporate boardrooms look to use AI to aid, and sometimes to replace, expensive human software engineers.
Cursor, a code generation startup based in San Francisco that can suggest and complete lines of code and write whole sections of code autonomously, raised $900 million at a $10 billion valuation in May from a who's who list of tech investors, including Thrive Capital, Andreessen Horowitz and Accel.
Windsurf, a Mountain View-based startup behind the popular AI coding tool Codeium, attracted the attention of ChatGPT maker OpenAI, which is now in talks to acquire the company for $3 billion, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Its tool is known for translating plain English commands into code, sometimes called 'vibe coding,' which allows people with no knowledge of computer languages to write software. OpenAI and Windsurf declined to comment on the acquisition.
'AI has automated all the repetitive, tedious work,' said Scott Wu, CEO of code gen startup Cognition. 'The software engineer's role has already changed dramatically. It's not about memorizing esoteric syntax anymore.'
Founders of code-gen startups and their investors believe they are in a land grab situation, with a shrinking window to gain a critical mass of users and establish their AI coding tool as the industry standard.
But because most are built on AI foundation models developed elsewhere, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, or DeepSeek, their costs per query are also growing, and none are yet profitable.
They're also at risk of being disrupted by Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, which all announced new code-gen products in May, and Anthropic is also working on one as well, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The rapid growth of these startups is coming despite competing on big tech's home turf. Microsoft's GitHub Copilot, launched in 2021 and considered code-gen's dominant player, grew to over $500 million in revenue last year, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Microsoft declined to comment on GitHub Copilot's revenue. On Microsoft's earnings call in April, the company said the product has over 15 million users.
LEARN TO CODE?
As AI revolutionizes the industry, many jobs - particularly entry-level coding positions that are more basic and involve repetition - may be eliminated. Signalfire, a VC firm that tracks tech hiring, found that new hires with less than a year of experience fell 24 per cent in 2024, a drop it attributes to tasks once assigned to entry-level software engineers are now being fulfilled in part with AI.
Google's CEO also said in April that 'well over 30 per cent' of Google's code is now AI-generated, and Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said last year the company had saved 'the equivalent of 4,500 developer-years' by using AI. Google and Amazon declined to comment.
In May, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said at a conference that approximately 20 to 30 per cent of their code is now AI-generated. The same month, the company announced layoffs of 6,000 workers globally, with over 40 per cent of those being software developers in Microsoft's home state, Washington.
'We're focused on creating AI that empowers developers to be more productive, creative, and save time,' a Microsoft spokesperson said. 'This means some roles will change with the revolution of AI, but human intelligence remains at the center of the software development life cycle.'
MOUNTING LOSSES
Some 'vibe-coding' platforms already boast substantial annualized revenues.
Cursor, with just 60 employees, went from zero to $100 million in recurring revenue by January 2025, less than two years since its launch. Windsurf, founded in 2021, launched its code generation product in November 2024 and is already bringing in $50 million in annualized revenue, according to a source familiar with the company.
But both startups operate with negative gross margins, meaning they spend more than they make, according to four investor sources familiar with their operations.
'The prices people are paying for coding assistants are going to get more expensive,' Quinn Slack, CEO at coding startup Sourcegraph, told Reuters.
To make the higher cost an easier pill to swallow for customers, Sourcegraph is now offering a drop-down menu to let users choose which models they want to work with, from open source models such as DeepSeek to the most advanced reasoning models from Anthropic and OpenAI so they can opt for cheaper models for basic questions.
Both Cursor and Windsurf are led by recent MIT graduates in their twenties, and exemplify the gold rush era of the AI startup scene. 'I haven't seen people working this hard since the first Internet boom,' said Martin Casado, a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, an investor in Anysphere, the company behind Cursor.
What's less clear is whether the dozen or so code-gen companies will be able to hang on to their customers as big tech moves in.
'In many cases, it's less about who's got the best technology - it's about who is going to make the best use of that technology, and who's going to be able to sell their products better than others,' said Scott Raney, managing director at Redpoint Ventures, whose firm invested in Sourcegraph and Poolside, a software development startup that's building its own AI foundation model.
CUSTOM AI MODELS
Most of the AI coding startups currently rely on the Claude AI model from Anthropic, which crossed $3 billion in annualized revenue in May in part due to fees paid by code-gen companies.
But some startups are attempting to build their own models. In May, Windsurf announced its first in-house AI models that are optimized for software engineering in a bid to control the user experience. Cursor has also hired a team of researchers to pre-train its own large frontier-level models, which could enable the company to not have to pay foundation model companies so much money, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
Startups looking to train their own AI coding models face an uphill battle as it could easily cost millions to buy or rent the computing capacity needed to train a large language model.
Replit earlier dropped plans to train its own model. Poolside, which has raised more than $600 million to make a coding-specific model, has announced a partnership with Amazon Web Services and is testing with customers, but hasn't made any product generally available yet.
Another code gen startup Magic Dev, which raised nearly $500 million since 2023, told investors a frontier-level coding model was coming in summer 2024 but hasn't yet launched a product.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Independent Singapore
5 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
From bromance to blow-up: Trump and Musk's bitter spat
The most ballyhooed bromance on earth blew up in spectacular fashion on Thursday when the world's most powerful leader traded barbs online with the world's richest man. In the middle of a meeting with the German chancellor, US President Donald Trump posted that he was 'disappointed in Elon', stung by the tech tycoon's unrelenting criticism of his 'big, beautiful bill'. The spat between these high-profile bromates lit up the internet, with live-blogging websites offering tweet-by-tweet updates, and others speculating—sometimes behind paywalls—on whether the erstwhile bosom buddies had become bitter enemies. Only the most incorrigible punters would dare wager whether the rift is permanent or passing. Given their mercurial temperaments, today's feud could easily become tomorrow's flirtation. Supporters of strong governance may, nevertheless, be relieved. The world's most powerful leader is still more potent than its richest man—at least for now. Musk blinked first. Musk indicated on X he is ready to relent, but the White House has turned a cold shoulder. The president reportedly continues to criticise the Tesla, X and SpaceX boss in private. Costly spat The spat could prove costly for both men. While Trump and his political action committees may not receive the $100 million or more reportedly pledged by Musk, the tycoon risks losing billions. Trump has threatened to cancel his government contracts, posting: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' The rift widened after Musk lambasted Trump's signature tax-and-spending bill, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' sure to wreck the nation's finances. To add insult to injury, he claimed Trump wouldn't have won the election without his support. Trump said he was 'very disappointed in Musk,' accused him of turning 'hostile' after being turfed out of government, and charged that the billionaire was meddling in politics to further his business interests. Musk, who spent over $250 million supporting Trump's re-election bid last year and once declared, 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man,' hit back hard. He called for Trump's impeachment and replacement by Vice President JD Vance and warned that the president's tariffs could trigger a US recession. See also Hillary Clinton urges Biden not to concede in close election He also insinuated that Trump's name appeared in sealed files relating to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Still, Musk eventually toned down his rhetoric. After threatening to decommission his Dragon spacecraft, which NASA uses to transport astronauts, he responded to a netizen urging calm with: 'Good advice… Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' His conciliatory tone, however, received no response from the White House. Trump may struggle to find alternatives if he scraps contracts with Musk's companies. SpaceX remains the only US firm transporting astronauts to and from space. Several government agencies also depend on its Falcon rockets, in-orbit vehicles, and the Starlink network—more than 7,500 internet satellites, which Ukraine has used in its war against Russia. Media pundits are almost unanimous in concluding that the bromance was doomed from the start—doomed by two towering egos unwilling to share the spotlight. Ideological divide? But Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland sees more than just a personality clash. He believes there is also an ideological divide. See also Trump and Biden outline competing visions for US economy Musk's opposition to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' may be linked to its failure to extend tax credits for electric vehicles—a provision that might have boosted Tesla's sagging sales. Publicly, however, Musk has criticised the bill on fiscal grounds, warning that it will deepen the already gargantuan US deficit. In doing so, he has recast himself as a champion of traditional, deficit-conscious Republicans. Freedland notes a growing divide on the American right: between old-school conservatives who worry about fiscal responsibility, and nationalists like Trump's former strategist Steve Bannon, who support tariffs and oppose global immigration. Musk, by contrast, has argued against tariffs and in favour of keeping the US open to highly skilled, tech-savvy immigrants. He has even called for the formation of a new political party. No wonder the bromance has broken down. But then again, politics makes strange bedfellows—and anything's possible. Featured image by Depositphotos (for illustration purposes only)
CNA
8 hours ago
- CNA
‘FIRE' paints an attractive picture of achieving financial freedom early in life, but retirement shouldn't be the end goal
Over the past decade, the FIRE movement (Financial Independence, Retire Early) has been gaining widespread popularity online, inspiring and motivating more people to manage their money better in order to retire sooner. Some fantasise about how they can 'fire' their boss once they retire early. Others dream of being able to stop working entirely to spend time on family or passion projects. There's nothing wrong with FIRE as a goal, but true financial freedom can look very different from the picture this ethos paints. NO LONGER TRAPPED BY OUR NEXT PAY CHEQUE The relationship between our work and finances is a tightly entwined one – most of us need our next pay cheque in order to cover our living expenses and bills, so we keep working. As such, it can be easy to equate the idea of 'financial freedom' with that of 'freedom from work'. But in reality, financial independence and early retirement are two distinct, different things. Not everyone wants to stop working. Studies show that purpose and productivity are essential for our long-term happiness – even post-retirement. Many who reach financial independence continue working, not because they have to but because they want to. But what financial freedom really gives us is the power to make decisions about how we work without worrying too much about financial repercussions. It allows us to choose roles that align with our values, take breaks when needed, or say no to toxic work environments. When we're no longer trapped by the need to rely heavily on our next pay cheque, we gain the freedom to work for our own growth and purpose. WHAT IS YOUR VERSION OF FIRE? The original FIRE ethos called for saving aggressively (usually more than half your income) and investing wisely so you can retire early. It sounded great in theory, but for most, it often required high income and extreme frugality. Today, the FIRE movement has evolved to encompass varying definitions of financial independence. It is no longer about reaching an end goal, but more about the type of lifestyle we desire and the level our finances will need to hit in order to support our aspirations. For instance, 'Lean FIRE' refers to a minimalist lifestyle where you retire with a lower budget. There's also 'Barista FIRE', describing a point where withdrawing from your savings and investments can cover your major expenses and bills, while you supplement the shortfall with part-time or passion-based work (such as being a barista). These newer variations of FIRE may seem like dilutions or compromises – but in reality, they are just as true to the core essence of financial freedom. True financial freedom empowers us with choice rather than demanding retirement. It should mean more options, not less. This shift in mindset can be liberating. Instead of chasing a retirement date or age, we can focus on building a lifestyle where money supports flexibility, purpose, and well-being rather than escape. Perhaps you might decide to stay in your current job, but negotiate fewer work hours that would allow you to care for your children or ailing parents. You might explore part-time roles, start a small business, or pull a Jeremy Tan and pursue advocacy for change (even if it's not as an independent candidate in a general election). ARE WE LOOKING FOR ESCAPE, OR A BETTER BALANCE? Out of all the people I know who've successfully achieved financial independence, the happiest ones are those who never quit working – but it's not because they particularly love slogging. A friend downsized his role to two days a week to spend more time looking after his mother after her cancer diagnosis. Another stopped chasing yearly pay increments and started mentoring juniors instead, finding deeper fulfilment in growing the next generation than a fatter pay cheque. Clearly, the real problem isn't work itself – many people find meaning, identity, and purpose through their work. Rather, it is the lack of control over what, how, when, and why we work that has us dissatisfied. Financial freedom can still mean not working at all, but it's important for us to understand that this isn't the only version of true freedom. Maybe it'll mean a smaller pay cheque, but while it may look to others like you're settling for less, you're in fact gaining more in time, autonomy, and peace of mind. Ironically, when we do work that we're passionate about – work that energises us instead of draining us – we are much more likely to stay the course. WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT Even so, I get why FIRE remains so popular not just in Singapore but around the world. Trying to achieve financial security is getting trickier and trickier, especially in a world where inflation only seems to keep climbing and job stability is quickly vanishing in the face of repeated layoffs and the proliferation of artificial intelligence. That's why the FIRE movement appeals to millions of people around the world, because it seems to offer a solution. A way to regain control. But the core tenet of financial independence was never about never working again – it about never needing to work out of fear or survival. So instead of running towards an arbitrary finish line, consider the path you're on instead. Is there a way to redesign the way work fits into your life now? We don't have to wait until we retire, whether it's early or not.
Straits Times
18 hours ago
- Straits Times
US judge approves settlement allowing NCAA schools to pay athletes
The approval resolves long-running litigation between the NCAA and student athletes. PHOTO: REUTERS NEW YORK – A United States judge on June 6 granted final approval to a US$2.8 billion (S$3.6 billion) settlement with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) that will allow schools for the first time to compensate student athletes for past and future commercial use of their names, images and likenesses. The settlement, approved in a ruling by US District Judge Claudia Wilken in the Oakland, California, federal court, resolves long-running litigation between the NCAA and student athletes. 'Despite some compromises, the settlement agreement nevertheless will result in extraordinary relief for members of the settlement classes,' Wilken wrote. She also said that the deal will 'permit levels and types of student-athlete compensation that have never been permitted in the history of college sports'. The ruling marked a 'historic day for college sports and the rights of athletes', the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, said in a statement. In a statement, NCAA president Charlie Baker welcomed the judge's ruling. 'Student-athletes will benefit from the rich opportunities they enjoy now, plus far more scholarship opportunities, landmark financial benefits and a streamlined NCAA to support them,' he said. The NCAA denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. The deal faced dozens of objections that it did not adequately compensate athletes or was unfair in other ways. Objectors to the deal now can appeal to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The settlement, covering hundreds of thousands of current and former students since 2016, resolved three lawsuits that claimed NCAA rules barring payments to athletes violated US antitrust law. The US$2.8 billion will cover past damages. The plaintiffs' lawyers previously estimated the deal would provide tens of billions of dollars to class members over the next 10 years. Schools will be allowed to pay athletes from funds that universities receive from broadcasts and other commercial sources. The NCAA in April convinced a federal judge in Manhattan to dismiss a lawsuit seeking compensation for thousands of former student athletes who played team sports in college prior to 2016. Those students have filed an appeal. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
