Duopoly is the only answer, and it’s why we need antitrust back in the U.S.

I think it's also an argument that no private labs should've developed the underlying models. It's been wreckless, based on theft of work, and now creates a power imbalance we haven't seen in a long time if ever.

If we could do it all over again we should've made it a public private development where the cutting edge research and models were developed as a public good and let private actors develop it for business and other offerings. Things would undoubtedly moved slower, but I think that would have been a benefit as well.

Seems like there’s plenty of competition idk

This is something I wonder about as well. If this is their strategy then using anthropic to help you write software, directly as a feature of your product, or their office software is just giving away trade secrets/road maps/etc to a competitor.

Specifically I wonder how Google feels leasing TPUs to Anthropic while they're clearly developing enterprise office software to directly compete with Google.

Probably the same way Google feels paying billions to Apple for search traffic while Apple develops iOS, and the same way Apple feels paying billions to Google for models and compute to power Siri AI while Google develops Android, and the same way Netflix feels running everything on AWS while Amazon develops Prime Video, and...

The tech industry is highly interdependent. Each of these deals has been structured to be as mutually beneficial as possible - otherwise, the two parties wouldn't have agreed.

Yeah short term you need to use it to keep up with your competitors.

Google paying Apple for search traffic is beneficial to both parties. Apple doesn’t spend money on a search engine and Google is front and center for customers.

What I’m describing would be more like Google paying Apple to kill the iPhone. Google search and gsuite are core parts of googles business model. Search doesn’t even exist on apples side of things. They are not comparable

[delayed]

Because they're not spying on your meetings or your code to do it -- it happens regardless, if they take the time.

Also, because anyone who's worried about their company getting out competeted by Anthropic hasn't looked up anyway, so you can't expect much in regards to their longterm strategy. That's "iPhone Moment" thinking; completely insufficient for the gravity of 2027.

Anthropic have thrown a lot at the wall and yet they’re still not leading in any software, even Claude Code has been usurped by endless examples of third-party harnesses / editors / IDEs. Anthropic continue to prove that deep expertise + obsession when building software leads to better products.

Explain Microsoft Teams :)

Explain Slack?

First mover advantage and money ( IPO)

I’ve come to the conclusion that slack is not that bad (via working in a slack as primary means of communication org). Way better than heavy reliance on email, at least

After few tools I would even say that Slack is the best (or we missed some great alternative then).

I've used mattermost and hipchat and both are pretty bad

Who is the profitable integrator making money off agent-in-meetings right now?

I kinda don't see how that's relevant? Anthropic doesn't need Granola or any other such tool to be using Claude in order for Anthropic to know that it's a product worth copying. But I guess my point then pushes things towards "Anthropic is able to copy you even if you don't use their service", which could be said for any AI lab. Just look at Muse following the hype around Grok Bot or Instinct. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find more examples.

> Why on earth would any third party continue to use Anthropic’s offerings to manage their AI needs? They clearly are going to cannibalize any profitable integrator.

Because their competitors will. In other words company A wants to get there faster than a company B in the same market. If there are no competitors and it's monopoly and it's only company A vs Anthropic, then yeah they should think twice perhaps before sending their code to Anthropic (or anyone else like that).

So short term you need to use their products to keep up with competitors, but longer term they effectively replace your companies ability to prove a value add.

Seems like its lose-lose.

I know that companies are selling data of how there white-collar worked to AI for a lot of money. The founder gets the money, but whilst he thinks he’s replacing his employees he might be also replacing his company.

I don’t know how this all plays out. FWIW I’ve turned off the data usage agreement and probs everybody should and be a bit more closed generally :/.