Just as Uber subsidized rides to reshape transportation, Cursor is subsidizing AI-assisted coding to own developer workflows. The playbook is identical: accept massive losses to achieve market position that eventually enables pricing power.

Cursor offers capabilities that cost far more than users pay. The gap is investment in market share—betting that developer habits formed now create switching costs later. This is classic blitzscaling: sacrifice unit economics for speed to defensible market position.
The Developer Workflow Bet
Why is developer workflow worth subsidizing? Developers are gatekeepers for technology adoption. Tools that become developer defaults gain distribution advantages for years. GitHub achieved this with repositories; Cursor is attempting it with AI-assisted editing.
The strategic assumption: once developers build workflows around Cursor’s AI capabilities, migrating to alternatives becomes painful even if competitors offer similar features. Switching costs in developer tools are notoriously high.
The Uber Lesson
Uber’s playbook worked—until it didn’t. Massive subsidies built market position but didn’t eliminate competition or guarantee profitability. The question for Cursor: at what point do subsidies end, and will the market position justify the investment?
The AI coding space may prove more winner-take-all than ride-hailing, where network effects are local. Or it may fragment just as readily. The subsidy strategy is a bet on the former.
For startup strategy analysis, visit The Business Engineer.
Cursor exemplifies Floor company characteristics: viral mechanics, near-zero CAC, AI-native architecture. For the complete VC framework on Floor vs Ceiling investments, see The Venture Capital OS for SaaS.









