I'm the CEO of a direct competitor to trigger, and we're in the same boat. What we make is great for any type of workflow, but our investors are pushing us hard to frame it as AI agents.
FWIW, more than 1/2 of our customers are AI agents, so it does make sense. But you're right, it's great for all sorts of use cases (trigger and us).
> FWIW, more than 1/2 of our customers are AI agents, so it does make sense.
We’ve seen the same thing, more even. Our positioning wasn’t even lead by our investors; we figured if the main thing our customers were doing on the platform was building complex/long-running AI agents (and ‘agentic’ workflows), it made sense to lean into it. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for us, it does actually fit what we do pretty well, even if you can also do a lot of other great stuff with the platform which isn’t covered under that umbrella. It’s a tricky thing to get right.
One of the biggest downsides of raising money. The moment you have investors, they own a lot of what you do even though they shouldn't in theory.
All of the un-budgeted money right now is for AI related workloads, so if you want enterprise money you have to pitch your product as AI.
And if you want investor money right now, you better have an AI product.