Microsoft announces partnership with vibe coding startup Replit
Additionally, the coding tool will also be integrated with multiple Microsoft cloud services like containers, virtual machines and their Neon Serverless Postgres database which is supported by Replit.
The platform helps users with little coding experience build web apps using natural language prompts and then customise features directly.
'Our mission is to empower entrepreneurial individuals to transform ideas into software- regardless of their coding experience or whether they're launching a startup or innovating within an enterprise. Forward-thinking companies like Zillow are already using Replit to rapidly prototype, build internal tools, and address unique business challenges with custom software solutions,' Amjad Masad, CEO and co-founder of Replit said.
'Our collaboration with Replit democratizes application development, enabling business teams across enterprises to innovate and solve problems without traditional technical barriers.' said Deb Cupp, President, Microsoft Americas.
Like other players in the vibe coding field that have gained attention, Replit's annual recurring revenue shot up from $10 million to $100 million within six months, CEO Amjad Masad tweeted last month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Netscape's Lessons for AI Mania
The initial public offering was filed at $14. Everyone wanted shares, so Morgan Stanley set the deal price at $28. As trading started, the stock popped to $74, ending the day at $58. Tech star Figma? The latest SPAC? No, it was 30 years ago this week, Aug. 9, 1995. The Journal's Molly Baker nailed it: 'It took General Dynamics Corp. 43 years to become a corporation worth today's $2.7 billion in the stock market. It took Netscape Communications Corp. about a minute.' Remember, Netscape was a money-losing company with only $16.6 million in sales in its previous six months. Worth $2.7 billion! That's the equivalent of Nvidia shares going up 11 cents today. We've come a long way, baby. There are lessons galore. First, a new computing era was born. Netscape founder Marc Andreessen's browser broke the 80-20 data rule—computer users went from manipulating 80% of data on their local networks and 20% elsewhere, to accessing 80% of information from the emerging World Wide Web. This unleashed huge demand for bandwidth to upgrade data speeds. The browser was simple to use, and putting up websites required little programming. Startups previously had to show at least two quarters of profitability before going public. No more. For investors, it was a new sky-is-the-limit internet era, and long-duration investing became standard. Growth was more important than profit. Funky ideas got funded. Money accelerated innovation as investors were willing to fund losses. Speculation roared and momentum lured in new and late investors. No one wanted to miss out on the next big thing. Sound familiar? No worries, the thinking went, companies would grow into their inflated value (most didn't). In 1999 dot-com mania saw 480 companies go public, raising $62 billion—most, like with flimsy prospects. Meanwhile, new business models emerged—speculation enables experimentation. Netscape was free for individual users, but corporations paid a license fee. This freemium model scaled from thousands to millions of people, as it was so easy to download the product, a precursor of today's smartphone apps, including artificial intelligence. Previously unthinkable, Netscape reduced Microsoft's power. It helped that Netscape drove an antitrust case to stop Microsoft from bundling its own browser. It took years for Microsoft to embrace the internet and eventually reinvent itself as a data-center company to deliver . . . web pages. Corporate America scrambled to 'webify'—a huge power shift toward Silicon Valley. Many were trampled in the process. Every company put up a website, but this enabled search engines like Google to crawl distant computers and run ads against search results, hurting magazines and broadcasters. Craigslist ran classified ads online, killing many local newspapers. E-commerce sites like Amazon devastated much of retail. Open beats closed. The Web's protocols were available to anyone. Other online services, like America Online, were closed to outside innovation. AOL was nicknamed the Love Boat, versus the shark-infested open internet waters. We know who won. Success attracts scrutiny. As computers relied more on phone and cable companies for bandwidth, regulators stepped in. Silicon Valley spent more on lobbyists, culminating in $1 million inauguration donations and prime seating. Ugh. The Netscape earthquake was only the beginning. There were so many more great investments and IPOs to come—first the web, then software as a service, then the entire smartphone ecosystem. I was running a small venture fund in the '90s, and we were set to invest in Mosaic, later renamed Netscape. It wasn't to be, as the lead venture investor insisted on doing the entire funding round. Afterward, whenever I got tossed out of other deals, and there were many, I could whisper loud enough to be heard, 'Yeah, I've been thrown out of a lot better deals than this one.' With today's flurry to invest in any company that can spell AI, Netscape's biggest lesson is that nothing lasts forever. AOL bought Netscape in 1998 for $4.2 billion in stock. AOL's peak value reached $222 billion in December 1999, and in January 2000 it bought Time Warner for $182 billion. The dot-com boom peaked a month later, and the merger was a massive failure. AOL stopped supporting Netscape browsers in 2008. In 2015 AOL was sold to Verizon for peanuts, and in 2021, along with the remains of Yahoo, it was sold to private-equity firm Apollo. In the current bull run, the 'Magnificent Seven' stocks, growing on the backs of Netscape's innovation, are worth $19 trillion. Netscape is a footnote in history but proof that the spark of a new idea and the freedom to pursue it, coupled with robust capital markets and even a dose of runaway speculation, can change everything. Even if the first movers, the original innovators, don't make it. Write to kessler@
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
AI's Overlooked $97 Billion Contribution to the Economy
The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 3% in the second quarter, which is great news. Does that mean artificial intelligence is delivering on its long-promised benefits? No, because gross domestic product isn't the best place to look for AI's contribution. Yet the official government numbers substantially underestimate the benefits of AI. First-quarter 2025 GDP was down an annualized 0.5%. Labor productivity growth ticked up a respectable but hardly transformative 2.3% in 2024, following a few lean years of gains and losses. Is AI overhyped? Only if you look exclusively at GDP. Our research, with Felix Eggers, widens the lens and finds that Americans already enjoyed roughly $97 billion in 'consumer surplus' from generative AI tools in 2024 alone. Consumer surplus—the difference between the maximum a consumer is willing to pay for a good or service and its actual price—is a more direct measure of economic well-being than GDP. Generative AI's $97 billion in consumer surplus dwarfs the roughly $7 billion in U.S. revenue recorded by OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic and Google from their generative AI offerings last year. It doesn't appear in GDP because most of the benefit accrues to users rather than the companies. Economists have heard this story before. Personal computers failed to improve measured productivity significantly for nearly two decades after they were introduced to office desks. As Robert Solow famously quipped in 1987, 'You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.' ChatGPT reached 100 million users in two months, yet productivity still behaves as if it were 2015—when the AI chatbot didn't even exist. There are structural reasons for the lag. Translating a flashy demo into organization-wide workflows requires new software, retraining and—most crucially—an overhaul of management practices. In the short run, many firms pay twice: first for the AI software and then for employees to learn how to use it. Payoffs often come later, through complementary investments such as redesigned supply chains or revised legal processes. The costs are counted today; many benefits arrive tomorrow, leading to a productivity J-curve. The larger issue is conceptual. GDP captures the value of most things bought and sold. But with few exceptions, free goods are invisible in the GDP numbers, even if they make consumers better off. When a consumer takes advantage of a free-tier chatbot or image generator, no market transaction occurs, so the benefits that users derive—saving an hour drafting a brief, automating a birthday-party invitation, tutoring a child in algebra—don't get tallied. That mismeasurement grows when people replace a costly service like stock photos with a free alternative like Bing Image Creator or Google's ImageFX. To bridge the gap, we developed a measure, GDP-B (B for benefits), in our forthcoming paper with Erwin Diewert, Mr. Eggers and Kevin Fox. Rather than asking what people pay for a good, we ask what they would need to be paid to give it up. In late 2024, a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults revealed that 40% were regular users of generative AI. Our own survey found that their average valuation to forgo these tools for one month is $98. Multiply that by 82 million users and 12 months, and the $97 billion surplus surfaces. William Nordhaus calculated that, in the 20th century, 97% of welfare gains from major innovations accrued to consumers, not firms. Our early AI estimates fit that pattern. While the consumer benefits are already piling up, we believe that measured GDP and productivity will improve as well. History shows that once complementary infrastructure matures, the numbers climb. Tyler Cowen forecasts a 0.5% annual boost to U.S. productivity, while a report by the National Academies puts the figure at more than 1% and Goldman Sachs at 1.5%. Even if the skeptics prove right and the officially measured GDP gains top out under 1%, we would be wrong to call AI a disappointment. Life may improve far faster than the spreadsheets imply, especially for lower-income households, which gain most, relative to their baseline earnings, from free tools. As more digital goods become available free, measuring benefits as well as costs will become increasingly important. The absence of evidence in GDP isn't evidence of absence in real life. AI's value proposition already sits in millions of browser tabs and smartphone keyboards. Our statistical mirrors haven't caught the reflection. The productivity revolution is brewing beneath the surface, but the welfare revolution is already on tap. Mr. Collis is an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy. Mr. Brynjolfsson is a professor at Stanford and co-chairman of Workhelix, a company that assesses machine-learning opportunities.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
No H-1B visa, study and get out: Trump aide's message to foreign students
Steve Bannon, former White House strategist and close aide to US President Donald Trump, has called for a complete purge of international students from American universities. Bannon's comments reignite the debate over the future of the H-1B visa programme and the place of foreign talent in the United States. 'I don't think you should have any foreign students in the country right now,' said Bannon, claiming that international students are edging out American students from educational and job opportunities. He added, 'Instead of stapling a green card to their diploma, the administration should staple an exit visa. Boom, you are out of here. You get 30 days to hang out with classmates, you can come back for alumni stuff, but you are gone.' Why does Bannon believe foreign students are harming America? Bannon argued that allowing foreign students to stay in the US after graduation drains other countries of talent, likening it to British imperial policies. 'The countries of the world won't get better if you're sucking up every piece of talent. That's how the British ran their empire. It's imperial,' he said. He also warned that blocking legal pathways like student visas will only worsen illegal immigration. 'If everyone wants to come to Harvard and they can't, they will come through Central America, and we'll stay in the same mess we are trying to clear now,' said Bannon. Are H-1B visas responsible for American job losses? The H-1B visa programme has come under renewed scrutiny as US tech giants announce waves of layoffs. According to around 80,000 tech jobs have been cut this year. While companies insist that foreign workers are also being laid off and that H-1B visas are not to blame, American tech workers remain sceptical. In 2024, nearly 400,000 H-1B visas were approved — more than double the number issued in 2000. However, a large portion of these approvals were for renewals rather than new applications. Most H-1B holders work at major firms like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, who invest heavily to retain foreign-born employees, Newsweek reported. What did Vice President JD Vance say about hiring foreign workers? US Vice President JD Vance has criticised tech companies for firing American workers while continuing to hire from abroad. In July, Vance publicly targeted Microsoft, saying he doesn't believe the 'bulls**t story' that companies can't find qualified Americans. 'We want the very best and the brightest to make America their home. But I don't want companies to fire 9,000 American workers and then to go and say, 'We can't find workers here in America.' That's a bulls**t story,' said Vance during a bipartisan forum. The US labour market has also shown signs of weakness. The July jobs report revealed only 73,000 new jobs added that month, with downward revisions slashing 258,000 jobs from May and June figures. How are these remarks affecting international students? Bannon's comments come as foreign students, especially from India, face mounting challenges in securing US visas for the upcoming academic session. 'The 27 per cent drop in the number of F-1 student visas, particularly for Indian students, may seem linked to Trump's return, but the reasons go deeper,' Mamta Shekhawat, founder of a study abroad platform, told Business Standard. Shekhawat explained that visa denials were already on the rise even before Trump's re-election. 'However, the decline significantly accelerated after the introduction of new immigration norms by his administration. In May 2025, the US government paused pending visa interviews and tightened vetting, causing delays and a large number of cancellations,' she said. Are Indian students now choosing other countries to study abroad? Shekhawat noted that Indian students are now actively exploring alternatives to the US. 'We have witnessed firsthand a clear shift in students' outlook towards studying in the US. The majority are increasingly turning to destinations like New Zealand, Ireland, Germany, Australia and France,' she said. According to her, this change is not only because of visa rejections. 'Indian students are aligning strategically towards a broader portfolio of study abroad opportunities, moving beyond traditional destinations like the US and UK,' said Shekhawat.
