# Product vs Model Innovation

DevFeed: [Product vs Model Innovation](<https://devfeed.tech/articles/product-vs-model-innovation-25312.md>)

Original publisher: [Read original article](<https://kau.sh/blog/product-vs-model-innovation/>)

Author: Kaushik Gopal

Published: 2025-10-29T19:32:07Z

Content type: opinion

Language: en

Sources: [Kaushik Gopal's Site](<https://devfeed.tech/sources/kaushik-gopal-s-site.md>)

Topics: [cursor](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/cursor.md>), [Artificial Intelligence](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/ai.md>), [ide](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/ide.md>), [coding](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/coding.md>), [Claude Code](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/claude-code.md>)

Tags: [ai](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/ai.md>), [claude-code](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/claude-code.md>), [coding](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/coding.md>), [cursor](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/cursor.md>), [ide](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/ide.md>), [models](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/models.md>), [product](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/product.md>)

## AI overview

This opinion argues that Cursor's position in AI-assisted development has been driven primarily by product innovation, especially its user interface and agentic IDE workflows, rather than by control of foundation models. An addendum revises that view, suggesting Cursor's coding-IDE data may enable its custom Composer model to compete with major models, although Cursor still relies heavily on primary model providers.

## Source excerpt

Cursor is known to be the fastest growing SaaS company in history. Yet, because they don't control the underlying model, I've always felt the writing was on the wall. They are an AI tool, not an AI product, and tool companies risk disruption from model providers who can build competing tools on their own platforms. But Cursor has consistently shown they can deliver the highest quality product. The paradigms they introduce set the standard for how AI integrates into developer workflows. When Claude Code and other TUIs emerged with smoother agentic editing, I wondered how Cursor would respond. Sure enough, Cursor 2.0 proves they can stay ahead by introducing some of the best UI paradigms for an agentic IDE. What keeps Cursor going is product innovation, not model innovation. They aren't trying to win the model game.1 And while many worry the writing is on the wall, they continue to set the pace for how IDEs adopt AI. Addendum ## The more I read their subsequent post on kernels and how they went about training Composer (their new custom model), I'm starting to change my thinking about Cursor and ever so slightly more bullish on the writing not being on the wall for them after all. Their first mover advantage (with a fantastic product) allowed them to collect data that's unique to the coding IDE use case. This has now given them the ability to train a highly effective custom model that could potentially give the Sonnet 4.5s and GPT codexes of the world a run for their money. Yes, I'm aware they have custom models and "Cursor Tab" is an example of them doing amazing work in that area. But their "product" still relies heavily on the primary model. If Cursor didn't support Sonnet 4.5, for example, it would be a non-starter for most users. ↩︎