"we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet."
"Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools."
"We built the most-advanced AI for helping developers, but it fell short of the 10× improvement required to break through because today’s state of the art for ML on code is not good enough."
Sounds like you know why people didn't pay for it. If it truly did make people as productive as you claim, it would have sold like hot cross buns on a cold day.
Exactly, they started a decade earlier and got outdone despite the massive head start. Then again maybe without the big data they had no hope of succeeding, but they should've mentioned that specifically instead of giving a bunch of contradicting statements.
If they're claiming 18%, it was probably more like 5% to 10% and it's really hard to sell something that's 5% better (especially when the alternative is free/ do nothing).
There are different types of market timing. They're right about the tech not being ready, but others are because you found the right "moment." Wordle was a success because it got traction in a covid winter. The exact same experience was just as viable 10 years earlier, but people weren't looking for entertainment in the same way.
> developers began noticing something: Kite had quietly injected promotional content and data-tracking functionality into open-source apps the company previously had no affiliation with. The discoveries of those injections, and Kite’s initial refusal to roll them back, led to backlash from programmers who felt the company’s actions undermined the open-source community.
I was looking for such comment to understand why the GoodByeAds (which I use with NextDNS) contains a record for kite.com (which means I'll have to add an exception to access kite.com).
The only shady thing that I recall is that they quietly added telemetry into Atom after they took over maintenance of it, without communicating this to Atom users.
"we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet."
"Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools."
"We built the most-advanced AI for helping developers, but it fell short of the 10× improvement required to break through because today’s state of the art for ML on code is not good enough."
Sounds like you know why people didn't pay for it. If it truly did make people as productive as you claim, it would have sold like hot cross buns on a cold day.