I think they're trying to decide whether it's worth jumping all the way to an M5 or whether they'd rather just get an M4 or M3 at discount.

It depends on whether you're measuring competition as "number of competitors" or "market concentration". You can have a lot of actors but still have high concentration. Healthcare for example has many actors but the concentration is very high among the big health systems and insurance providers.

I'm a cofounder of a small software company that specializes in enterprise projects and I don't agree with this line, though the rest of the article rings true. Enterprises do need legibility at the project level, but that doesn't necessarily translate to internal legibility for the contracted company. You can deliver enterprise deals without demanding a particular internal development process, other than committing to and prioritizing certain features. You do need legibility at the customer-facing project management level, but that doesn't need to get so granular that you dictate how exactly developers perform and organize their work. To me the real explanation is pretty simple: large software companies need the legibility of enterprises because they are enterprises, or are trying to become one.

Playwright MCP has a mode where it can run as a Chrome Extension, which allows you to use it on your active browser session. Not sure if you can do point and click to communicate but it covers the development setup and login bit.

The title strongly implies that vendor lock-in is a bad thing (the phrase "lock-in" has a very much negative connotation), but then the article proposes that you should just give up and go all in on vendor lock-in with a proprietary platform. The alternative to vendor lock-in with SaaS would naturally be running standardized open-source or home grown solutions. That is what people who complain about vendor lock-in generally recommend, not SaaS. The article would be more clear if it addressed that.

Ok, that's fair. I think I might have approached this from a typical JavaScript/ TypeScript developer - where using SaaS is the norm. I'm wondering what you developing in? Not wishing to invalidate your point, just curious?

We're a Rails shop generally using basic Postgres + Redis with various Rails gems filling in where needed. Our needs aren't terribly complex though.

On mine I tried it "natively" and in DALL-E mode and the results were basically identical, I think they haven't actually rolled it out to everyone yet.

The newest generation of agents[0] aren't implemented this way; the model itself is trained to make decisions and a plan of action rather than an explicitly programmed workflow tree.

[0] https://openai.com/index/computer-using-agent/

I think you’re referring to function calling: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/function-calling

This still returns a string. You need to explicitly program the branch to the right function. For example, check out how OpenAI Agents, released a week ago, rely on a workflow: https://github.com/openai/openai-agents-python/blob/48ff99bb...

No I'm referring to the newest generation of agentic models one of which I linked to. These are not fully released but it is where the newest generation of research is headed.

It's hard for me to comment on something not open sourced

That remains to be seen. Manus, a standard agent built with Claude 3.7, outperforms o3 agentic model on the GAIA benchmark.

Operator/Computer Use is a bridge until we no longer need any tools at all

What gives you any confidence in that transition happening in the best future?

The article says the opposite of what you're assuming.

Since they referred to talking to “clients”, I’m guessing the problem wasn’t that the task couldn’t be done but that the client didn’t want to pay more for the additional work.

Cisco doesn’t really sell this stuff directly, you have to buy through resellers.