TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

1083 点作者 dynamicwebpaige超过 2 年前

116 条评论

LASR超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.<p>I know this first hand, building a developer tool startup and failing to reach any level of revenue. In the end, the tech was bought out by a larger company to recover a fraction of our VC investment.<p>The challenge is that when you&#x27;re building software for developers, they already know how it must work.<p>It&#x27;s like trying to sell magic tricks to magicians. Sell magic to regular people, and you&#x27;ll see some significant revenue.<p>I&#x27;ve used Kite before. It was ok. But I am a SWE. It&#x27;s entirely possible that Kite would have seen major adoption if the push was towards non-technical folks trying to get their feet wet in software. Eg: Data scientists or business.<p>The reason why BI tools sell so well at the moment is that you have tons of C-level execs that like the appeal of a business-optimizing tool requiring little to none of any actual software development.<p>Let that be a lesson to everyone. You can&#x27;t blow away developers. They&#x27;re just too damn ~~smart~~ well-informed.<p>Edit: Another anecdote: A buddy of mine built a bespoke OCR and document indexing&#x2F;search tool. He has ~60 paying clients (almost exclusively law-firms and banks) that primarily work with printed pages on paper. No Saas. No free tier. The client data resides on an on-premise Windows box, avoiding issues with sensitive data in the cloud etc.<p>He&#x27;s a solo dev with support contracts and nets something like $1000&#x2F;month from each client.<p>For your average lawyer&#x2F;paralegal, the ability to locate and reference a single page from thousands of pages in under a second is magic. So they pay for it wholeheartedly.
评论 #33687877 未加载
评论 #33688345 未加载
评论 #33688376 未加载
评论 #33688008 未加载
评论 #33691851 未加载
评论 #33689288 未加载
评论 #33687956 未加载
评论 #33692133 未加载
评论 #33691528 未加载
评论 #33688953 未加载
评论 #33688481 未加载
评论 #33689637 未加载
评论 #33687720 未加载
评论 #33689968 未加载
评论 #33690588 未加载
评论 #33690804 未加载
评论 #33689429 未加载
评论 #33689771 未加载
评论 #33691840 未加载
评论 #33692757 未加载
评论 #33694273 未加载
评论 #33700888 未加载
评论 #33688205 未加载
评论 #33691725 未加载
评论 #33690999 未加载
评论 #33689430 未加载
评论 #33691039 未加载
评论 #33688067 未加载
jrpt超过 2 年前
&quot;Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough.&quot;<p>I never used Kite, but I&#x27;ve tried Github Copilot twice, and found it marginal at best (and distracting at worst - which is why I turned it off both times). If Kite was similar, the reason I&#x27;m not paying is that coder AIs are not providing any value.<p>Developers are somewhat reluctant to pay for tools but I think you can get them to pay for things that are worth it. I&#x27;ve been paying for code editors for years.
评论 #33685888 未加载
评论 #33686355 未加载
评论 #33685865 未加载
评论 #33687496 未加载
评论 #33685686 未加载
评论 #33686072 未加载
评论 #33686022 未加载
评论 #33686331 未加载
评论 #33686419 未加载
评论 #33686814 未加载
评论 #33686118 未加载
评论 #33686393 未加载
评论 #33685938 未加载
评论 #33686798 未加载
评论 #33686148 未加载
评论 #33687262 未加载
评论 #33685758 未加载
评论 #33687825 未加载
评论 #33685770 未加载
评论 #33687641 未加载
评论 #33685887 未加载
评论 #33686681 未加载
评论 #33685693 未加载
评论 #33689961 未加载
评论 #33694942 未加载
评论 #33687797 未加载
评论 #33690182 未加载
评论 #33686184 未加载
malwrar超过 2 年前
“Our 500k developers would not pay to use it. Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.”<p>I don’t like depending on something I could lose in a month or tethers me to the internet. I consider that more a service than a tool. I’d prefer to just buy something once that just works, but that business model might be dead too since people will pirate things that aren&#x27;t tethered to some serverside component.<p>I guess what I’m saying is that I want to buy tools, but people are only renting. Personally I’m largely holding out hope this becomes someone’s open source passion project and I can truly own my tools.
评论 #33686858 未加载
评论 #33687225 未加载
评论 #33688294 未加载
vessenes超过 2 年前
Condolences to the Kite team. But, congratulations, too - you have some of the highest value engineering experience in the world. I&#x27;m sure you&#x27;ll land somewhere great; try and take some time off if you can afford it!<p>Mulling over business models, and noticing the &#x27;devs won&#x27;t pay&#x27; narrative in the blog post, it&#x27;s interesting to see the existing business models in AI; basically they seem to be:<p>* API-driven cloud calls (this is a way to get high value out of your existing cluster if you&#x27;re AWS, MS, etc.)<p>* Platform play + possible eventual lock-in: OpenAI&#x2F;Microsoft<p>* Subscription service for very specific needs (Grammarly, writing support)<p>I wonder if engineers would pay $9.99&#x2F;month (or even $49.99&#x2F;month) for a &#x27;grammar checker for PRs&#x27; - essentially: &quot;Avoid embarrassing bugs before you commit&quot;. That is, I wonder if Kite could have been successfully sold as the third tier - sub service for something very specific.<p>I guess if it&#x27;s a good idea, someone could pull the Kite repos and launch it -- but my guess is there may be a market in there.
评论 #33685659 未加载
评论 #33689073 未加载
评论 #33685892 未加载
dmarlow超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m confused.<p>&quot;we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet.&quot;<p>&quot;Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.&quot;<p>&quot;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.&quot;<p>Sounds like you know why people didn&#x27;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.
评论 #33686869 未加载
评论 #33688001 未加载
评论 #33691502 未加载
评论 #33687981 未加载
评论 #33686192 未加载
评论 #33686311 未加载
nikisweeting超过 2 年前
Kite messed up privacy expectations one too many times by uploading everything in my home folder without consent. They were repeatedly shamed for this on HN and every time it seemed like they didn&#x27;t understand why people were mad about consensual analytics.
评论 #33691206 未加载
mkoubaa超过 2 年前
The thesis that helping developers write code has value is flat wrong. We spend so much more time reading, reviewing, designing, arguing&#x2F;bitching about code than we do writing it. Orders of magnitude more.<p>Any developer tooling company must understand this basic fact.
评论 #33691192 未加载
perlgeek超过 2 年前
I&#x27;ve tried Kite once, and wasn&#x27;t really impressed. For example, back when I tried it, it wouldn&#x27;t offer <i>any</i> kind of autocompletion within a string. Even vim&#x27;s built-in autocomplete tries to complete words for you there, based on other words you&#x27;ve used before.<p>Kite did sometimes offer some good suggestions in regular code, but it tried <i>really</i> hard to understand your code, and went belly-up when it didn&#x27;t.<p>At that time, I tried some other ML-based autocompletion tool which wasn&#x27;t specific to python, and which usually worked much better, except that it used far too much memory and caused regular crashes.<p>Maybe they improved kite since I tried it, or maybe &quot;individuals don&#x27;t pay for dev tools&quot; isn&#x27;t the whole story. Or maybe both.<p>Anyway, kudos for both trying and for open-sourcing the code at the end!
oxfordmale超过 2 年前
I disagree with their statement that individual developers do not pay for tools. I have paid for tools out of my own pocket on many occasions. However, being able to deliver code 18% faster isn&#x27;t enough to fork out $9.99 a month. First of all it is relatively expensive. For that amount I can get a personal license for PyCharm. Secondly coding speed never tends to be a bottle neck for delivering a feature or a product on time. I can see why Engineering Managers are not willing to pay for this.<p>I do wish the Kite team all the best, and I hope they can re-use their skills in products that are commercially viable.
评论 #33686079 未加载
评论 #33685963 未加载
评论 #33817079 未加载
评论 #33686047 未加载
HeavyStorm超过 2 年前
&gt; You can see this in Github Copilot, which is built by Github in collaboration with Open AI. As of late 2022, Copilot shows a lot of promise but still has a long way to go.<p>This sounds like spite. Sure, copilot can be even better (what can&#x27;t?) but it&#x27;s already a great tool. It has a small learning curve (which is just getting comfortable with it) and then it can add a lot to your productivity. Of course, this is orthogonal to any copyright polemics out there.<p>Kite never got close to what copilot is.
plgonzalezrx8超过 2 年前
&quot;we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet.&quot;<p>&quot;Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.&quot;<p>&quot;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.&quot;<p>So basically, everyone&#x27;s fault but their own. Got it.<p>Edit: Also I want to say, that WE DO pay for stuff if it brings us value. Out of my pocket I pay for JetBrains, Github, Temius, and the SublimeText 4.
throwthere超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.<p>Throwing salt on the wound here but that’s just false. I mean, there’s copilot and it’s alternative that I can’t think of the name right now. more broadly there’s Jet brains ides, visual studio, Productivity apps, etc. look at product hunt or appsumo or popular show hns. Devs pay for tools, just not Kite.<p>Edit: I should clarify, enough devs pay for tools to make the market sustainable. Not all devs pay for tools.
评论 #33689891 未加载
评论 #33685745 未加载
评论 #33685723 未加载
评论 #33685813 未加载
neilv超过 2 年前
Opensourcing code when you shut down has the nice effect of making it available to the world.<p>It also has the nice effect of keeping the code available to the people most familiar with it, as they move on to other ventures.
评论 #33686239 未加载
fire超过 2 年前
Sad to see, but happy they&#x27;re open sourcing things.<p>I went ahead and filed an issue on kiteco-public[0] about their derived data because the readme states:<p>&gt; By the way, we are happy to share any of our open-source-derived data. Our Github crawl is about 20 TB, but for the most part the intermediate and final pipeline outputs are pretty reasonably-sized. Although please let me know soon if you want anything because we will likely end up archiving all of this.<p>However, I have no idea if this is the right way to contact them<p>0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;kiteco&#x2F;kiteco-public&#x2F;issues&#x2F;5" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;kiteco&#x2F;kiteco-public&#x2F;issues&#x2F;5</a>
azhenley超过 2 年前
Kite rejected me for a position years ago which motivated me to go raise $1M from the NSF to research AI-based dev tools before I moved on to Microsoft.<p>They seemed like a really cool team, I wish them the best.
评论 #33688911 未加载
评论 #33688696 未加载
blondin超过 2 年前
sorry to see this happen, but there were early signs.<p>kite was that autocomplete solution that required you to have an account right? and they shipped your code to their servers? i remember trying it. some of us raised early concerns but our voice is not the loudest.<p>so again, the main problem is that kite was an intrusive solution for corporate networks. a developer needs to justify, through millions of layers, a solution like it. that it is safe to run it in a corporate environment.<p>why are you comparing yourselves to copilot? it&#x27;s github!<p>not a single CISO will blink at trusting github, or microsoft, or google. a startup? it&#x27;s not the kind of product that&#x27;s helpful on a hobby project. the individual developer will pay where it makes sense. it makes sense in the corporate environment where there is tons of code to write.<p>so yeah, okay, that new terminal thing called warp. that autocomplete in the terminal called fig. you all ask people to create accounts and ship their data home? don&#x27;t act surprised later.
lopkeny12ko超过 2 年前
&gt; Then, our product failed to generate revenue. Our 500k developers would not pay to use it.<p>I don&#x27;t pay for Kite (or any other proprietary developer tooling like Github) because one day your company can choose to shut down, change its terms, or raise my prices and I&#x27;d be left without recourse, while also being locked in to a proprietary workflow. Just like you did today, which validates my hesistation.<p>Kite should have been open source from the very beginning. I hope the team can take away this learning for their next startup. I applaud teams like GitLab who build entirely in the open--and, as a result, have highly successful products and businesses.
评论 #33687388 未加载
brandelune超过 2 年前
The AI hype is finally over.<p>Meta&#x27;s language models, GH Pilot, real life car auto-pilot. When it fails, it fails big. And the &quot;we were 10+ years early to market&quot; is just a big lie that bought them plenty of VC money. Good for them.
评论 #33690331 未加载
jll29超过 2 年前
Things I&#x27;ve payed for that I&#x27;m still using today:<p>- Sublime<p>- GitHub.com<p>- ACM Digital Library<p>(The latter two are subscriptions.)<p>Things I&#x27;ve payed for in the past that I no longer use:<p>- MS Visual C++<p>- Omicron Pascal<p>- Application Systems Modula-2<p>- Atari ST GFA BASIC 2.0<p>- Berkeley YACC and FLEX port to TOS&#x2F;GEM<p>- ...<p>Overall, many dev tools are free nowadays, which creates an expectation, perhaps, that it should all be free (I disagree in principle, but of course it is nice to see this trend progressing).<p>I appreciate that Kite is posting a post mortem for others to learn, and I wish they had been able to find a niche where people pay for their work. I love software tools as a work product, but have been told by many experienced people it&#x27;s not a good area for making money.
评论 #33686391 未加载
jawns超过 2 年前
&gt; We failed to build a business because our product did not monetize, and it took too long to figure that out.<p>This is the one-sentence summary about why the business failed, but it&#x27;s kind of a strange way of putting it.<p>I am dead sure that there were plenty of advisers along the way who told the company&#x27;s executives that its monetization plan was weak and unlikely to succeed. But everyone assumes that they&#x27;ll be the exceptional case.<p>&quot;It took too long to figure that out&quot; makes it seem like the most likely scenario wasn&#x27;t staring them in the face the whole time.
Mikeb85超过 2 年前
Individual developers pay for tools, they just have to be worth it. JetBrains&#x27; whole existence is a testament to that.<p>From what I remember, people got super annoyed at Kite for placing ads in open source projects and they just never caught on.
dopeboy超过 2 年前
From one founder (of a much smaller startup) to another: respect for writing this. It probably wasn&#x27;t easy but the fact that you took the time to do it and share learnings so that the next startup in the space can benefits speaks volumes about y&#x27;all.
dhosek超过 2 年前
It’s a bit weird to me that developers (myself included) are reluctant to pay for tools. When I first started out in the 90s, I spent significant amounts of money on developer tools: Zortech C&#x2F;C++. Borland Pascal, Borland C&#x2F;C++, Paradox for database work, not to mention the hundreds of dollars I spent on printed books. Now, the only things I’m spending money on are subscriptions to IntelliJ and CLion and infrequently books. I wonder how much this reluctance to spend money is holding back software development.
inglor超过 2 年前
&gt; As of late 2022, Copilot has a number of issues preventing it from being widely adopted.<p>I see CoPilot all around me and it&#x27;s generally well regarded and pretty widely adopted given how new it is.<p>Is there any data for this statement you can share?<p>(Thanks for working on kite and good luck!)
lmeyerov超过 2 年前
Sorry for the Kite team, but for other folks aspiring here, more optimism is in order: We pay for copilot for Graphistry staff because it works well. Similar story for Docker Desktop: It&#x27;s new, yet people are already paying for it to the tune of 8 figures revenue per year. I bet similar is&#x2F;will be happening with Copilot.<p>Credit to where credit is due. I worked in R&amp;D here in a group tackling it for almost a decade (&quot;program synthesis&quot;), and while Copilot has a lot more to do, it solved so much of the usability &amp; basic use case gap of what the R&amp;D community had been attempting for years. Large language models &amp; transformer models have been out for years, and the Github team executed well on adapting them.<p>(Separately: There _is_ an interesting question whether this space is VC-investable -- how likely will at least 1 startup here make it to 9-10 figures of revenue. But that&#x27;s another story.)
评论 #33687595 未加载
sqs超过 2 年前
Sourcegraph CEO here. I respect what you and your team built. It’s tough to build a brand new kind of product, and I heard from many people who loved Kite over the last several years.
评论 #33686680 未加载
TruthWillHurt超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m sorry, but the reason I didn&#x27;t pay for Kite was that I moved to Tabnine which is free, and does a better job, with a simpler AI model... just scanning my local code provided better recommendations than Kite (and I never got any of the promised multi-line suggestions).<p>Even plain old Jedi was a decent competitor to Kite.<p>So you we&#x27;re no beat by billion-dollar CoPilot I&#x27;m afraid...
dzink超过 2 年前
I remember when Kite launched. The feedback on HN was that few people wanted all of their code sent to Kite’s servers. Copilot took all open source code instead and made it autocomplete into your IDE. It would be hard to sell to any company giving away their IP for some auto completion, but it’s easy to sell autocompleting from open source code.
codetrotter超过 2 年前
&gt; 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. You can see this in Github Copilot, which is built by Github in collaboration with Open AI. As of late 2022, Copilot has a number of issues preventing it from being widely adopted.<p>True, AI assisted coding does not deliver 10x. But as a user of another AI assistant, I feel that it gives me ~1.25x to ~2x improvement for the keyboard typing when I code. And that is respectable too :) AI for me currently allows me to tab complete some things that previously an IDE on its own was not able to.
评论 #33685714 未加载
lolinder超过 2 年前
&gt; The largest issue is that state-of-the-art models don’t understand the structure of code, such as non-local context.<p>Depending on how local he&#x27;s talking, this isn&#x27;t really true of Copilot. In my experience it will use context all the way up to the top of the file, even in very long files. And at least the Rust version even seems to look at the imports—if you have a use declaration it will actually correctly build and use structs in other files regardless of whether you&#x27;ve yet used them in the current file.
评论 #33685994 未加载
评论 #33685778 未加载
jl2718超过 2 年前
Code automation seems like a poor substitute for effective abstractions in a language, but, having seen this game before many times, I think it’s the way we are headed. Writing code will become entirely idiomatic, like the pidgin language we’ve developed for searching google, and the actual source will be unintelligible and useless, probably JavaScript simply because there is the most data available for the AI to train on, relying entirely on the compiler for efficiency. The code sizes will be monstrous, as there will be no more effort put into maintaining modules, because the AI doesn’t need to organize things this way.<p>From an old programmer perspective, it doesn’t make much sense, but a new programmer will not want to learn the old way, which will be effectively obsolete from lack of updates. If there’s any value to be derived from it, perhaps it is demand for hardware that will run enormously-inefficient code. The way that now you see people doing full sorts to get the third-largest value just because it’s easier to write it that way, you will see code that also does analytics and builds a distributed hash table to accomplish the same task, just because more capability means more usage means more suggestions to carry along that code.<p>I think it was a mistake to think of computer programs as a linear text language, but I don’t see this turning back. At some point, the concept of programming a machine will merge entirely with the method of interacting with a machine, which is to say, communicating intent, and then I suppose we can relax into a very comfortable full-service 5-star extinction.
dgudkov超过 2 年前
&gt;Our 500k developers would not pay to use it.<p>You need to have 500 users to understand that, not 500K. A well-written postmortem otherwise.
awill88超过 2 年前
&gt; The largest issue is that state-of-the-art models don’t understand the structure of code, such as non-local context.<p>When I read “non-local context,” it really drove home for me just how off the mark they were and changed the whole tone.<p>It also makes me think were they just hoping the solution would fall out of the sky? Seems irresponsible if that was part of their calculus.
legerdemain超过 2 年前
Kite made me a very good (for a startup) job offer a few years back. They had a very friendly and welcoming bunch of people, and even Adam, the founder, came off as a typical human being in conversation. Easily the best job I&#x27;ve ever turned down, even knowing that Copilot would eat their lunch a year or two later.
rsynnott超过 2 年前
&gt; First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet.<p>This seems to be very much the standard story for &quot;AI&quot;; not quite there yet. Given the history, it&#x27;s, er, surprising that people are constantly surprised by this.
EGreg超过 2 年前
Netscape open-sourcing their code is what led to Firefox and an open Web, as a counterweight to closed source browsers. Safari took WebKit from Konqueror<p>I wish more projects would do this
评论 #33685651 未加载
asim超过 2 年前
It&#x27;s always a shock to see startups like this get shutdown. I guess initially there&#x27;s a lot of hype and excitement, almost like an inevitability that will lead to raising more and more funding until a business model is found. It&#x27;s always two things that stop that from happening 1. Run out of money 2. The founders quit. To persevere through covid, war, etc is no easy feat, to do it when you started in 2014 and then see fresh faces on the scene in the AI space in 2022, much harder.<p>It&#x27;s also demoralising to see an entire category form without you, especially when you were working tirelessly towards it early on. I&#x27;ve really learned this the hard way also. Good luck to the Kite team in their future endeavours.
ElKrist超过 2 年前
&quot;Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough.&quot;<p>Are there a lot of businesses where individual developer productivity, with a narrow definition of LOC per hour, is the bottleneck?<p>I&#x27;ve worked for 10 years as a web dev and the bottleneck is very often at the product management level (tickets not ready, goals changing, haven&#x27;t got the credentials for the 3rd party API yet..) and a minority of the time it&#x27;s my brain (yes sometimes I need to think before I write code). It&#x27;s rarely how fast I can write a function. So if you make me 18% faster at something I do 1% of the time... good luck making money out of me
评论 #33685901 未加载
netik超过 2 年前
Ten years too early? no.<p>They got wiped out by microsoft, github copilot, and litigation issues around AI provided code.
评论 #33685828 未加载
评论 #33692888 未加载
rch超过 2 年前
&gt; the Kite Engine, which performs all the code analysis and machine learning 100% locally on your computer (no code is sent to a cloud server).<p>I was never aware they changed the architecture to keep code analysis entirely local. I would have purchased a subscription, had I known.
happytiger超过 2 年前
Thank you for open sourcing your startup. I’m sorry it didn’t work out. I think you deserve a big congratulations for being the first to really go after this problem. It’s a correct problem — it’s a big market and the solution will come eventually — I’m just sorry it turned out to be too gnarly to solve for you right now! I would have loved for it to have worked out better.<p>I agree that Kite didn’t deliver the 10x. I was an early user and tried hard to use it but didn’t find the benefit compelling enough to drop into my workflows, but it was very exciting.<p>I’m sure I speak for all of HackerNews when I wish you the best for whatever is next for the team.<p>Also, what are you good folks doing next?
chasing超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.<p>I’m an individual developer and I pay for tools <i>all the time</i>. They just have to be of value to me. If developers weren’t paying for <i>your</i> tool, maybe look within.
评论 #33701220 未加载
rajnathani超过 2 年前
Thread from 2017 about Kite using some shady practices: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14836653" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14836653</a>
mistrial9超过 2 年前
code repos<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;orgs&#x2F;kiteco&#x2F;repositories" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;orgs&#x2F;kiteco&#x2F;repositories</a>
didip超过 2 年前
This is the first time I heard of Kite and I frequent HN a lot.<p>Maybe they should have spent more budgets on marketing.<p>That said, I agree that no one wants to pay for developer productivity. The only exceptions are IDE and databases.
lewisl9029超过 2 年前
Seeing a lot of comments trying to dispute the claim that &quot;individual developers do not pay for tools&quot;. The claim does invite these kinds of disputes since it&#x27;s so absolutist, but I do believe there is some truth to it, at least if we take it as a generalization (rather than a literal statement).<p>Anyone who&#x27;s either worked at a developer tooling company or tried to sell to developers themselves (I personally did both, having worked at CircleCI in the past and now building my own developer tooling product at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reflame.app" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reflame.app</a>, Show HN launch thread here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33134059" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33134059</a>) can probably back the observation that we individual developers are notoriously reluctant to open our wallets, even for products that we love and use daily, despite our high disposable income relative to professionals in other markets.<p>Gonna share a few of my own hypotheses for some of the contributing factors as comments below for discussion.<p>Would be fun to see folks share their own! Especially if you&#x27;ve seen successful strategies for how someone might be able to overcome these hurdles to selling products to individual developers at scale (a topic near and dear to my heart these days)!
评论 #33691150 未加载
评论 #33691132 未加载
评论 #33691246 未加载
评论 #33691170 未加载
heywoodlh超过 2 年前
It&#x27;s unfortunate when companies fail and I hope I am not coming off as celebrating their misfortune but I love this trend of companies open sourcing their products when they are unable to continue with their existing business model. I feel like it gives their products a chance to continue a positive legacy.<p>I&#x27;ve recently noticed a couple of companies open sourcing their product upon discontinuing the company -- is this a new trend or has it happened for a long time and I am only just recently noticing it?
enos_feedler超过 2 年前
It is smart to wind this down. Elon says the biggest mistake engineers make is optimizing something that shouldn’t exist in the first place. AI suggested code is exactly the kind of problem that engineers would fall into this trap for. Its cool and exciting and very alluring. Lets no lose sight of the fact that most code being generated in front of a developer shouldn’t need a developer there in the first place. We should not even be sitting to code a lot of things we are tasked with doing today.
selimnairb超过 2 年前
I would never willingly pay for AI coding tools. Why should I help improve a product that has a chance of putting myself or my fellow software developers out of work in the future?
quickthrower2超过 2 年前
&gt; Then we grew our user base. We executed very well here, and grew our user base to 500,000 monthly-active developers, with almost zero marketing spend.<p>&gt; Then, our product failed to generate revenue. Our 500k developers would not pay to use it.<p>Isn’t it better to work with a smaller number of users but more closely first. Otherwise you burn the chance to impress all of those users. Plus with 100 users you have a decent sample but you can also reasonably interview them all one on one.
refulgentis超过 2 年前
This is a very self-serving recap: &quot;we were too early and we&#x27;re still too early and Copilot proves it because its not 10x&quot;: it is 10x, sorry.
评论 #33686436 未加载
评论 #33685691 未加载
peter_d_sherman超过 2 年前
&gt;&quot;First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet.&quot;<p>I highly doubt that you failed! You blazed a trail forward for people in the future to follow. Financial success is not the same thing as taking a super tough problem to solve and then making inroads solving or starting to solve the many sub-problems (and their sub-problems) that invariably show up as a result of taking that path.<p>&gt;&quot;Then we grew our user base. We executed very well here, and grew our user base to 500,000 monthly-active developers, with almost zero marketing spend.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s extremely impressive in my book! (By comparison, I failed to get 2 users -- for one of the apps I built -- and that was <i>with</i> marketing spend! &lt;g&gt;)<p>&gt;&quot;Then, our product failed to generate revenue. Our 500k developers would not pay to use it.&quot;<p>You might mean that there may have been an issue with communicating the VALUE of your product such that users would &quot;see&quot; (magical word, &quot;see&quot; -- &quot;percieve&quot;, &quot;understand&quot;, &quot;observe in a way that you do&quot;) the VALUE of it -- such that they would be willing to equally-and-oppositely exchange their money for that VALUE...<p>Finally:<p>I do not think that you failed, and <i>you have no reason to apologize to your investors, customers, employees and others.</i><p>You pushed the envelope -- and you created great value for future generations who will no doubt benefit from your pioneering steps in this gargantuan undertaking.<p>Well done -- and I think more people should appreciate you for that!
satvikpendem超过 2 年前
I&#x27;ve used Kite, it simply wasn&#x27;t as good as Copilot. I&#x27;m not sure why they say that Copilot still doesn&#x27;t work well, it works well enough for me and I presume everyone else who pays for it.<p>That being said, glad to see a lack of Our Incredible Journey type language here and more of a true postmortem of their business and technical decisions. It is rare to see a company go into so much detail when shutting down.
jwmoz超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.<p>* Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for OUR tool.
ACV001超过 2 年前
It failed because they did it exactly in reverse of how it should have been done. First they assembled the team, then they outlined the product then marketing and then only then they realized nobody would pay for that. You&#x27;re supposed to first sell your product and then build it! I wonder whether anyone raised this issue in the early stage...
评论 #33686203 未加载
dlkf超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough.<p>What sounds more plausible you:<p>- engineering managers hate free money<p>- it’s obvious to everyone that this statistic is bullshit
MisterSandman超过 2 年前
What an honest, transparent message. Kudos.
评论 #33686956 未加载
jokethrowaway超过 2 年前
As a fellow failed startupper, this blog post reads like any other failed startup goodbye post.<p>Sure, your people were great but they didn&#x27;t innovate enough to make an attractive product (granted, AI code autocompletion is hard - I doubt we&#x27;ll get something I&#x27;d be happy to pay before we reach GAI and we&#x27;ll be all out of a job by then).<p>Oh and the &quot;It&#x27;s not the tech fault which is amazing, it&#x27;s just a sales pipeline issue!&quot;<p>Look, I understand caring about your employees and I said the same BS when my company failed trying to shift all the blame on me and not on my team. When you are in a startup it&#x27;s everyone&#x27;s job to say &quot;hey, btw, what we want to do will suck because the tech is not there&quot;.<p>If you see something raise it and try to pivot, or you&#x27;ll be out of a job with worthless grades.ß in<p>Maybe you could have cut your losses earlier on.
oofbey超过 2 年前
I think they&#x27;re spot on to say they were too early. But their analysis of the current state is pretty tainted by their personal situation.<p>Many people I know find copilot extremely helpful. I think tools like it are about to become extremely important to the productivity of everyday developers. I seriously doubt it will take $100M to develop. The company Kite might have needed $100M to get there, but I bet you a few smart people working evenings in their garages can get there too.<p>Also the &quot;nobody pays for dev tools&quot; line is pretty obviously a weak excuse. Github is a developer tool that was worth $7B+. The truth was they just didn&#x27;t provide _enough_ value to get people to pay for it. That&#x27;s clearly true, and goes along with their idea that they were too early. Not that the problem is impossible.
poidos超过 2 年前
No opinions on the product itself as this is the first I’m hearing of it. But:<p>I am very impressed and happy to see the open-sourcing of their code like this. I often find myself thinking about how much human knowledge and effort disappears when a company shutters and all of their documents, code, etc go with them.
mgkimsal超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.”<p>Sadly, I never heard of Kite until copilot came out. As someone who pays for tools, I would have considered it (have paid for JB for years, various atlassian tools, and other utilities&#x2F;etc).
tomcam超过 2 年前
Mad props for facing the truth and unsparingly admitting responsibility. So so rare.<p>Whoever wrote this will go far.
acyou超过 2 年前
Value generation in software doesn&#x27;t equal profit generation. Is it a flawed business model to pursue growth first and profit later? No, as long as there is a good plan to get that future profit. If the 500k developers weren&#x27;t driving business spending decisions enough to pay for Kite, either it isn&#x27;t particularly useful or it&#x27;s a sign of the times. I&#x27;m guessing from the rest of the context it&#x27;s the former, no one seems to be crying out that this is a great product that will be widely missed. This sort of failure is good and a good decision by the business leaders. It keeps our economy healthy, you want the real winners to win, and not every bet works out.
that_guy_iain超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.<p>Quite simply developers are not decision makers. Often engineering managers aren&#x27;t even decision makers. I fully believe if you want to dominate in that area you need to target decision makers who force it upon their developers. How many of us have been told we&#x27;re using X database or we&#x27;re using X project management tool or even X virtualisation system? Management makes these decisions which is why if you go an AWS conference you&#x27;ll find majority of the people there aren&#x27;t techies but management and lots of the talks are aimed at management understanding the tech.
评论 #33691695 未加载
rkagerer超过 2 年前
Hey Adam, I still remember sitting in a cafe with you after Xobni when you were contemplating what to do next and Kite was a just a gleam in your eye. Sorry to hear this one didn&#x27;t pan out, and all the best going forward!
kriro超过 2 年前
&quot;&quot;&quot;Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.&quot;&quot;&quot;<p>Not to sound overly mean but it might have been a good idea to start with testing this idea first&#x2F;earlier. Additionally, it seems to me like they didn&#x27;t do a great job at identifying their customer. It&#x27;s probably not individual devs but rather the people they work for. So you&#x27;re in a B2B business and need to sell it that way.<p>The meaner response would be that it seems like developers do not pay for YOUR tools. Seems like there are plenty of paying customers for copilot for example.
truetraveller超过 2 年前
Kinda funny: the most revenue you guys might actually get is selling your domain!
评论 #33687970 未加载
hsn915超过 2 年前
&gt; First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet.<p>What?<p>You&#x27;re supposed to <i>create</i> the technology, not wait for others to create it. That&#x27;s why VCs give you money, isn&#x27;t it?<p>&gt; We built the most-advanced AI for helping developers at the time, but it fell short of the 10× improvement required to break through because the state of the art for ML on code is not good enough.<p>Aren&#x27;t you supposed to advance the state of the art?<p>&gt; but the problem is very engineering intensive<p>So you weren&#x27;t a technology company?
gibsonf1超过 2 年前
The key issue is that ml&#x2F;dl is pure statistics - there is no intelligence or learning or conceptual awareness of space-time, so that technology can never do so many things people try to do with it.
评论 #33685862 未加载
hgs3超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.<p>Disagree. I pay for Visual Assist as an individual because its a huge productivity booster. I suspect the issue is pricing vs perceived value.
dmingod666超过 2 年前
I pay for jetbrains and GitHub co-pilot from my pocket I find it totally worth it. I think they must have been hesitant in asking for money. Copilot was free for 3 months and then paid.
raveenb超过 2 年前
Kite was good, integrations were plentiful, sad to see them go! I hope Tabnine learns from this and ups their game, I love what they are doing. Not so sold on Github Copilot yet, and probably the observations of Kite are applicable to Github Copilot, but due to their deeper pockets they may survive long enough to make to the AI breakthrough needed to get this product&#x2F;class of products flying!
zomglings超过 2 年前
Thank you for open sourcing your code. Thank you for your effort. 7 years is a long time to work on something, and I hope you all recover a bit from the previous campaign before moving on to your next things.<p>&gt; It includes our data-driven Python type inference engine<p>I couldn&#x27;t find which repository this lived in. I am very interested in it, as my team maintains a few open source static analysis and code generation tools. We&#x27;d be interested in trying this out.
qiller超过 2 年前
&gt; The largest issue is that state-of-the-art models don’t understand the structure of code, such as non-local context.<p>Copilot ended up being rarely helpful for me. But on the other hand, MS IntelliCode (I think it only works for C# in full Visual Studio) was a fantastic productivity tool that actually sped up writing code because it does understand the structure of C# and your codebase. Wish it was available for other languages and VSC
scarface74超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools<p>Counterpoint:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jetbrains.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jetbrains.com&#x2F;</a><p>Maybe instead of blaming potential customers for not finding enough value for your product, you might need to start looking inward.<p>I gladly paid for my own personal license for R# that I kept across four jobs over 8 years. I only stopped paying for it because I no longer develop in C#.
iepathos超过 2 年前
I think if they open sourced Kite from the start rather than as they call it quits that they could&#x27;ve had a ton of free development done on their products by interested developers. Developers not paying for tools is simply not true. Developers do pay for good tools. Sublime text is one such tool many devs pay for and it&#x27;s quite profitable and completely built and operated by a two person team.
renewiltord超过 2 年前
I pay for Copilot. Integrates with my neovim and my Jetbrains IDEs. I love it. Great stuff honestly.<p>My favourite use is at the command line. It&#x27;s great!<p>I pay for it myself and use it in all sorts of contexts.<p>EDIT: Actually, perhaps that is actually smart. If you want to find people who would pay for dev software you probably should target people who pay for dev software already. Jetbrains is better for paid plugins than VS Code by this logic.
dibt超过 2 年前
Good riddance. I still remember how they were phoning-home without being 100% transparent about it, and the injection of ads.<p>&gt; We failed to build a business because our product did not monetize, and it took too long to figure that out.<p>Yet people always defend telemetry in software, saying it&#x27;s how they improve their product. 7 years of telemetry, and they couldn&#x27;t figure it out?!
bdg超过 2 年前
Automating software is a really hard problem. I think I can imagine a possible roadmap to it, but it&#x27;s so hard to explain it in under an hour, it would require several sequential new technologies, and some of it hinges on parts of information theory I don&#x27;t know enough about, and statistical ML isn&#x27;t part of the core.
Dave3of5超过 2 年前
I wonder if a better approach is to build and train the ML model to recognize the AST of the code in question rather than text. The workflow would be Build AST -&gt; run ML to get an optimised solution render new code out from that optimised AST.<p>A lot of work I think and as is pointed out here devs wants their tooling for free.
Existenceblinks超过 2 年前
I like folks here defending their buying strategy. It makes the point even more valid, as I read all of these, they are very few data points. Quantitative and Qualitative -wise, developer tools market are almost non-existence. Better to jump into overall software development process tools if you insist.
ccbccccbbcccbb超过 2 年前
Two things are not providing for a bright future of IT:<p>- developers willing to use AI crutches instead of their own brains to write their code;<p>- developers unwilling to pay other developers while being paid themselves by companies whose profit models are often far removed from the honest craft of developing something wholesome.
charlieyu1超过 2 年前
I tried Tabnine and had mixed feelings. It can make sensible suggestions and save my time, but Tabnine forcing said suggestions to top priority means I’m spending time to press down key to find the obvious autocomplete. And this can’t be turned off.<p>Not sure about Kite though
评论 #33687755 未加载
6d6b73超过 2 年前
You gotta be high as a kite to use AI in its current state to help you write your software. ;)
progx超过 2 年前
2 years ago i try to register, not working. Write some mail to support, no response. Hello GitHub CoPilot. Have convinced myself and am also willing to pay for it. I can&#x27;t understand Kites Argument, that their users did not want to pay.
tommica超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m sorry that it did not pan out, but thanks for sharing the code!<p>Hopefully the next project goes well!
revskill超过 2 年前
Ahh, why Python ? Except for social networking website (which&#x27;s harmful), like reddit, instagram, choosing Python is bad for the world. Use better tooling, better languages to spread the good sides computing instead.
RandyRanderson超过 2 年前
Would&#x27;ve thought Adam Smith would be able to monetize something if anyone could.
isthisthingon99超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.<p>They do pay for tools, but not enough to make it a full time. I&#x27;ve got a few &quot;side&quot; projects that bring in a few K&#x2F;month each.
nnurmanov超过 2 年前
A few people would pay, you have to start monetizing your product from day 1 if possible. This was my mistake as well, I had 6,5k users in the group, no money after 8 months. So I shut it down.
bredren超过 2 年前
I was a relatively early Tabnine user and suggested this time two years ago that people were “sleeping” on AI code completion. [1]<p>I read about and tried evaluating Kite at the time and it seemed like it was in some kind of private invite stage. I remember thinking it must have been acquired and wasn’t taking new users. This must have been an incorrect take.<p>I’m surprised Tabnine is not mentioned in this thread at all, though because that was acquired and afaik is still operating.<p>Before copilot came along, Tabnine, not Kite, seemed like the ai took to beat.<p>I also remember a Python dev relations person from Jetbrains going on a podcast and clowning on AI code completion. That was in April of 2021. [2] A month later copilot dropped.<p>The very strange thing about that was Jetbrains described efforts to build an ML-based code completion plug-in in 2016! [3] It obviously failed to follow through on that.<p>I still think G Co pilot represents a threat to jetbrains IDEs overall. Even the packaged autocomplete can’t compete on basic stuff copilot does now.<p>I disagree with the idea that AI code completion is not good enough yet. I see that said all the time and yet it can masterfully fill in boiler plate today.<p>It can be way better, particularly in languages outside JavaScript and Python, but it’s usable now and maybe even profitable as a service if the business is not leveraged by VC capital.<p>If you listen to the September interview with Eddie Aftandilian of Github Copilot you would realize how early it still is for that product, as how to measure success in code completion is something still requiring behavioral patterns that are still being recorded.<p>Here’s the episode, listen 20 mins in: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.se-radio.net&#x2F;2022&#x2F;10&#x2F;episode-533-eddie-aftandilian-on-github-copilot&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.se-radio.net&#x2F;2022&#x2F;10&#x2F;episode-533-eddie-aftandili...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=25074393" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=25074393</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;jetsetter&#x2F;status&#x2F;1379438096232587265" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;jetsetter&#x2F;status&#x2F;1379438096232587265</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.jetbrains.com&#x2F;idea&#x2F;2016&#x2F;09&#x2F;share-your-stats-to-improve-code-completion-via-machine-learning&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.jetbrains.com&#x2F;idea&#x2F;2016&#x2F;09&#x2F;share-your-stats-to-...</a>
Aeolun超过 2 年前
I think I’ve tried all of the code completion tools and Kite is the only one I didn’t end up paying for. It just wasn’t useful enough.
mosselman超过 2 年前
I wish I could still click around the website and have a look at the product. Now it just redirects to the blog.
solarkraft超过 2 年前
I never cared a lot about Kite. But oh boy, suddenly it&#x27;s the only product in a category I do care about! Thank you!
评论 #33685718 未加载
dsign超过 2 年前
Oh well Kite team, may your members find well-paying jobs and exciting adventures elsewhere, you deserve it well.
victorvosk超过 2 年前
I find co-pilot useful when I am working with a language I am not familiar with but I imagine that isn&#x27;t the case for most developers working their day to days. I see ML and AI in dev as more of a code generation tool. Describe something large in a prompt, get a bunch of code. Then a dev can run through it like a code-review, making changes and tweaking it to suite the need of the client&#x2F;business.
synergy20超过 2 年前
copilot might impact kite&#x27;s future, it&#x27;s hard to compete against microsoft.<p>copilot: &quot;Get code suggestions in more than a dozen coding languages including Python, JavaScript, TypeScript, Go, and Ruby&quot;, how about c, c++ even lua here? if they cover c and c++ I can pay $10 per month right away.
29athrowaway超过 2 年前
Once it&#x27;s done, your product manager will push any improvements to the bottom of the backlog.
visarga超过 2 年前
Besides open sourcing code, are there any datasets of interest, code generation related?
sirsinsalot超过 2 年前
This is sad. I make a point of paying for so many development tools, fonts, and so on.<p>Builders buy hammers, drills. We should be parting with our money for tools that multiply our earning capacity as contractors and consultants.<p>I would pay 5x as much for many of the tools I buy too, such is their value.
quickthrower2超过 2 年前
&gt; non-local context<p>Is it easier to build AI for pure functional programming languages?
galaxyLogic超过 2 年前
&gt; Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools.<p>Does it mean employees don&#x27;t pay for the tools? Or that single-person (&quot;individual&quot;) independent developers don&#x27;t?<p>Why wouldn&#x27;t a developer pay $100 for a tool that saves a day of work for them?
评论 #33692772 未加载
nonbirithm超过 2 年前
One last reminder that they once hijacked several open-source repos to inject advertisements for their service into the codebases.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14836653" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14836653</a>
评论 #33685841 未加载
评论 #33685793 未加载
评论 #33685998 未加载
wentin超过 2 年前
this is one of the most transparent writing I read about shutting down startup. It is very insightful in a cut-throat way, I really appreciate that.
ilija139超过 2 年前
Great post, such a clear writing style. Farewell Kite!
hemantv超过 2 年前
I know good developers pay for tools. Maybe the lesson for someone who wants to be best at what they do is do things 90% of people they are competing with wouldn&#x27;t do.
评论 #33693078 未加载
didip超过 2 年前
Docker and Vagrant are the some of the prime examples.<p>They are clearly useful but people still don&#x27;t want to pay.
评论 #33691899 未加载
评论 #33693094 未加载
sanguy超过 2 年前
These guys were a complete joke; and a good example of fleecing the VC community.<p>Good riddance to bad rubbish
评论 #33691933 未加载
评论 #33686006 未加载
KAUSHIL超过 2 年前
I am hacker not suck from responsh from inda
KAUSHIL超过 2 年前
748339844739202926633947590432974849302
rayrey超过 2 年前
Love it.
dynamicwebpaige超过 2 年前
&quot;While we built next-generation experiences for developers, our business failed in two important ways.<p>First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet.<p>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. You can see this in Github Copilot, which is built by Github in collaboration with Open AI. As of late 2022, Copilot has a number of issues preventing it from being widely adopted.<p>The largest issue is that state-of-the-art models don’t understand the structure of code, such as non-local context. We made some progress towards better models for code, but the problem is very engineering intensive. It may cost over $100 million to build a production-quality tool capable of synthesizing code reliably, and nobody has tried that quite yet.<p>Nonetheless, we could have built a successful business without 10×’ing developer productivity using AI, and we did not do that.<p>We failed to build a business because our product did not monetize, and it took too long to figure that out.&quot;
rubiquity超过 2 年前
&gt; First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet.<p>That&#x27;s not the same thing as being too early to the market. That simply means you didn&#x27;t have a solution capable of solving a problem.
rockzom超过 2 年前
&gt; Our 500k developers would not pay to use it.<p>lol
KAUSHIL超过 2 年前
Kaushil name Radha agrawal andlike and support me in short video of the day of the month of the video done
m00dy超过 2 年前
&gt;&gt; It may cost over $100 million to build a production-quality tool capable of synthesizing code reliably, and nobody has tried that quite yet.<p>$100 million is nothing tbh.
评论 #33685657 未加载
评论 #33685587 未加载
评论 #33685831 未加载