So SpaceX is buying 15 years of future cashflows, assuming no change in revenue. Which is bad assumption given past growth was gigantic.
They are also buying 300-400 employees with proven record of training good coding models.
Their expertise will be used to improve Grok Build coding agent.
Also, they're using stock, not cash, so effectively they doubled the amount of money raised.
Is Grok not a toxic enough brand (by association with Musk) that people who would use Cursor wouldn't avoid Grok?
Like, the assumption seems to be that all the goodwill that Cursor users have towards Cursor will now apply automatically to Grok, which seems like a pretty significant leap.
Comparing grok vs Gemini vs GPT vs Sonnet is like comparing mid-high end CPUs. They're all about as good as one another for most work.
Even if the way they are doing it did damage coding performance, it is a simple matter of serving another model without that fine tuning in the enterprise API preferably only to the grok coding harness (or cursor, now). Coding performance for subscription plans don't move the needle in terms of revenue anyways and quality there doesn't matter as much.
Are they? Their Composer 2.5 models is based on Kimi K2.5, it's not a bespoke model.
I'd argue it's a bad assumption in the opposite direction. There's no moat. People can and will switch tooling and Cursor could easily be left with a steep decline in users.
The main challenge is: If models get better, why would humans need a tool like cursor, when they have AI agents doing the coding for them?