logoalt Hacker News

mohsen1today at 10:43 AM10 repliesview on HN

Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it.

Ollama is also doing this.

There is so much money to be made repackaging open source these days.

So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah.


Replies

miroljubtoday at 1:26 PM

> Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it.

The question is, where's the outrage? Why are there no headlines "USA steals Chinese tech?" "All USA can do is make a cheap copy of Chinese SOTA models".

> So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah.

Well, if it's an American company, then it's a noble underdog story. When Chinese do it, they are thieves leeching on the US tech investment.

It's all so predictable, even the comments here.

show 3 replies
NitpickLawyertoday at 10:50 AM

> packaging open source and reselling it.

It's a bit more than that. They have plenty of data to inform any finetunes they make. I don't know how much of a moat it will turn out to be in practice, but it's something. There's a reason every big provider made their own coding harness.

show 1 reply
dmixtoday at 1:20 PM

Cursor’s integration is much deeper than just plugging an LLM into VSCode

That said I have a feeling both VSCode and Claude code will catch up to their integration. But neither comes close yet (I say that as someone who mainly uses Claude Code).

show 1 reply
simplyluketoday at 3:49 PM

> a 50 person team just beat Anthropic

How does this blow that narrative up? A 50 person team likely broke a license to have a product that's competitive on output at a fraction of the costs of one of the most well capitalized companies on the planet. Claude code and anthropic are certainly the darlings of the space today, but to me this just reinforces the idea that their moat is razor thin on the model front, even compared to OSS that can be run on independent hardware.

The application layer play is also suspect to me. In the medium to long term I _want_ tools that'll let me run whatever models I want vs being tied to an expensive, proprietary, and singular provider. For personal work I care about costs, and eventually my employer will care both about costs _and_ enterprise features/governance that a company like Anysphere is extremely well positioned to provide.

More and more, I see the future of the application layer being model agnostic, most enterprises hosting models on their own cloud for data security concerns, and the models being fully commoditized.

show 1 reply
PUSH_AXtoday at 2:34 PM

> There is so much money to be made repackaging open source these days

These days? Almost every tech offering in existence is 1000+ OSS dependencies gaffer taped together with a sprinkling of business logic.

Cursor isn't a shocking bit of software to pay for, its investment however...

aimarketinteltoday at 3:58 PM

The moat is the integration layer, not the model. I've seen this building MCP servers — structured data access matters more than which LLM you pick.

rubymamistoday at 11:01 AM

Do you know what Qwen model Composer 1.5 used?

rvztoday at 12:19 PM

> Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen...

We know Composer 2 is Kimi K2.5 from that tweet. Where is the evidence for Composer 1 being based on Qwen?

> So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah.

In this case, it will be the other way round: Anthropic will see Cursor as a competitor AI lab using open weight models for Composor 2 (actually Kimi K2.5) which was allegedly distilled from Opus 4.6, and would be enough for Anthropic to cut off Cursor from using any of models.

That's where it is going.