upvote
Yes. But unlike cursor, Whatsapp had the following advantages:

1. It's cheap to run.

2. It has clear advantages over existing technology (SMS).

3. My mom uses it. She's never going to use cursor. Whatsapp had a huge userbase in Europe. Basically everyone I know uses it.

And it was "only" ~$20 billion. Inflation can't be this high.

reply
> And it was "only" ~$20 billion. Inflation can't be this high.

While I'm not sure about this buy, Cursor does at least have revenue. WhatsApp was basically running on VC/private money (they had an extremely nominal fee, but I never had to pay it), and was sold to buy its userbase into the Facebook fold. I don't think you can compare that to a business that at least has some decent revenue.

reply
WhatsApp was actually profitable pre-acquisition and they never needed the VC money. It was still in the bank + more when they got acquired
reply
If Whatsapp is burning through say ~$1B yearly with zero revenue and Cursor is burning through say ~$2B with a ~$1B revenue, they're both still in the hole.

I wish people would stop talking about just revenue. It's mostly meaningless without knowing their expenses.

reply
I think revenue is common to talk about because profit is also meaningless when a company spends every penny it earns to grow (new engineers, marketing, etc). Iirc Amazon made zero profit for quite some time.

Also revenue is a signal for product market fit. Is it a great one? Dunno. But for example I'd be hard pressed to sell $1billion of anything, even if I had something everyone wanted.

But I think your point about burn rate is important. How long can they have this attrition on cash before they collapse?

reply
I mean, the financials just don't look great either way.

Their main product is part VSCode, which is a market that's almost impossible to make money in, and part reselling already expensive LLM tokens.

You can look at more parameters and judge how well a company could do in the future. For Amazon, you can predict that once they stop growing, they can make a pretty penny.

But with Cursor that doesn't seem likely. Even if they had the talent for training models from scratch, which I don't think they do, and IF inference makes money, which is not clear at all, training models is still a huge money sink.

So, for them getting bought out by xAi which has a base model they can use makes sense. But what does xAi get here? Another endless money pit?

reply
Whatsapp was much much more at that point. It also had a huge userbase at a time when getting such a number of people was incredibly difficult. Many were also paying the $1 per year fee. Switching from Cursor to Kilo etc. takes nothing. There are no "friends" you need to convince to switch.
reply
The cost of switching from WhatsApp to an alternative is huge. You will lose access to your family, friends, whomever you chat with. They need to switch with you and in turn their friends need to switch with them, and so on.

The cost of switching from cursor to codex or Claude code is minimal.

So what does Claude code actually have that spaceX can't imitate? Well, not much, but acquiring hot companies before your IPO is a good strategy to drive up your own valuation.

reply
WhatsApp had real network effects built in, and network was the moat. Don’t think Cursor has any real moat.
reply
Whatsapp was already the de-facto communication standard for a lot countries in America and Europe when Meta bought it.
reply
I wonder if meta will ever buy the (non-chinese) asian equivalent, Line
reply