There is a big problem with how we work with ai-generated artifacts, but I don't think creating another google-docs-like suite is the answer.
LLMs are very good at working with Markdown, and are way worse with xml-based rich documents. The problem is, we have established collaborative rich docs, but no collaborative markdown-based docs.
For example at google, all your system design docs will end up being written in google docs, because it can be easily shared with granular access, people can leave comments, it's well integrated with other google products. But once your doc is in that complicated format, there's no way to iterate on that with an agent: it's gonna inevitably destroy your formating, overwrite some of your edited content, and you can't even have a nice line by line diff like you'd have when you work with a simple text format like md.
Building a nice collaborative markdown editor to the level where it competes with gdoc in popularity, at least in software engineering circle, would be the answer.
Same with sheets. Some stripped version, which is as close as just "csv editor with some better visuals" would be much more ai-friendly
When Anthropic released "claude design" people were telling that figma is dead now, but in fact claude design didn't move forward and stayed as a "fallback tool" when you quickly need to check / edit something. And for the serious work you still go to Figma and other designer tools.
I have a feeling that Whiteboards, Sheets, Docs and so on will be the same - it's a nicer way to present artefacts, discuss them and maybe make notes, but for the proper editor experience you'll go to the tools which were designed for these things. And I'm not saying that Claude Something tools are bad, they're just overly simplified and limited, probably on purpose.
Although you are not switching from Claude Design to Figma, it will limit Figma's future. I am not a designer, previously I have downloaded Figma and used it along with other tools. I am not going to open Figma again. As you said, Claude Design is overly simplied, and that's why new users will go to Claude Design, the fennel going to Figma is gone I think, and Claude Design will continue to improve. These AI platforms are like Operating Systems in OS war, or browsers in browser war, it is the app/platform people are going to have by default, and they are going to keep many of them inside their eco system. IMO, for short term, you are right, if we are speaking about long term, professional softwares are going to suffer a lot.
You're right but I do feel like this is more of a case of different paradigms being a slow burn rather than a failure.<p>I don't see people switching to Claude sheets overnight & the messaging from anthropic will likely become less effusive over time (short-/medium-term). But I'd be surprised if this doesn't make significant inroads in the long-term.
I agree, these new products (the same as claude design) is a base on which they'll be probably building new experiences and use cases, so long-term it will get much more integrated into daily live, especially for quick and easy tasks
I'm really happy with what Claude can do with Reladraw. No longer are objects colliding on the drawing (see Mermaid, draw.io). The artifacts that Claude can create off of "lighter" tools will make me go there 80% of the time, Figma and other "heavies" can stay in the 20%. More like 90/10 actually.
> objects colliding on the drawing<p>I don't quite follow you. Are you talking about Mermaid's lack of decision when laying out diagrams?<p>I'm working on a tool that makes it easier for me to work with mermaid diagrams (mermaid is a great intermediary format for representing certain types of information, e.g. software architecure, but its syntax does not work well with my brain), so I'm interested in alternative concepts that make it easier to work with these types of things.
Mermaid is an automatic layout tool. Reladraw has language where instead of letting an algorithm completely randomize your layout, you declare where items go using relative terms, such as below, right of, level with, or gaps (relative placement). The natural language is good for the LLM.
Claude design was good and it only gets better at design. For solo projects, it’s much better. They’re moving it from standalone to being fully integrated.<p>Figma is the default for teams but is losing a lot of stickiness.
I agree on solo projects, I actually use claude design as a viewer to see what my agents built or for quick and dirty prototypes, the design work itself happens in claude code. So to me "claude design" as a product doesn't really click, although I agree it's useful for many many people. In my case I'm just not an experience designer to learn Figma from scratch so claude design covers that part, but I saw how cool UX designers were still choosing Figma
This is very much how people felt about Google Docs when it was first released.<p>History is repeating itself AI natively.
For my latest app, I didn’t use any analytics software or package. Instead, I had the app save events as jsonl files on the server. I used Claude artifacts to create a custom report from that data. That was just a python file which now sits on a server next to those data files, giving me a live dashboard of very customized insights.<p>I don’t see myself ever using an off-the-shelf analytics package again.
I think its shortsighted tbh.
The advances are crazy. One will just release another claude design later and before you know it, it'll just be super figma.<p>What these tools are generally missing is a way for the user to "fix stuff" that isnt just prompting. Once they add things like that, added to model improvements... it's just going to be a cost story: which one is cheaper.
I think Ant and OpenAI are doing the same thing that AWS does in that they launch stuff they've built for customers or internal use.<p>OpenAI did something similar with Sales Assistant last year. Haven't heard of anyone using it.
What are you talking about? Claude Design is incredible and we’ve canceled figma
Once you understand how far you can push it, Claude Design is an incredible tool - my personal favorite ai-related thing of the year. Of course it's piggybacking off all the model advancements which has made it increasingly capable.
For the vast majority of users, Claude Design is game-changing. I used to pay designers tons of money to create brand style guides, which other humans then had to attempt to use to create on-brand anything (social media posts, printed documents, posters, websites, ads, whatever) for the business. They would almost always not know such a style guide existed, ignore it, or fail because they just didn't have the skills.<p>Claude Design almost completely solves that. One dedicated designer can make a Claude Design System and then <i>everything</i> it makes from there stays on brand with essentially zero effort. And it is super intuitive to get to a usable Design System. Every time I use it I think "<i>This</i> is how AI is supposed to feel."
We stopped using figma. Basically they just merged design into artifacts (they have a few rough edges to work out with transition but honestly it makes sense to me after a while).
> When Anthropic released "claude design" people were telling that figma is dead now, but in fact claude design didn't move forward and stayed as a "fallback tool" when you quickly need to check / edit something.<p>I don't think there is a reasonable expectation that these new tools will simply end Google Workspace. Google are going to be just fine to do whatever they want with their stuff, and they have the customers.<p>Anthropic can just do this for a new generation of people and businesses, and establish themselves here over time.
I wouldn't take any "X is dead" as more than just momentarily hype, we should get used to it now that it's been happening for years.<p>For me, this is simply a first-party UI for Claude. So they have better control over the presentation layer + some extra features on top.<p>It's not meant to be equivalent to Google Sheets or Excel.
Claude Design is a great idea but a terrible product. Claude Design may not kill figma but "something like claude design" probably will.
this is how Google docs, sheets and slides felt in comparison to MS Office when they first came out.<p>Initially they were adopted by customers with the simplest use cases and the products grew over time to what they are.<p>The next set of startups might just have a Claude sub when they are small and grow with the product
True, but still waiting for Figma stock recovery :(
For us, Claude design has been "good enough" and we stay in the design phase much less long in general. There's no need to get a polished design, just get it into code once you've decided the major UI decisions and iterate there.
Figma is trading lower now than it did when Claude Design was released with a total stock drop of 56.38% from Nov 10, 2025 to Nov 10, 2026.<p>So yes, not dead and clearly good for people who want that additional layer of control, but also nowhere where it used to be.
[dead]
Model companies are starting to cannibalize their api customers's business cases. Shows that the regular avenues of revenue growth are slowing down
It just shows that they hired a lot of productive people and gave them a lot of autonomy. Google went through a protracted period of this, culminating in the "more wood behind fewer arrows" mandate in 2011 where they decided to shutter stagnating, abandoned, or distraction efforts.<p>I expect that Anthropic will have success in some of their side hustles if they're reinforced by the model ecosystem and double down on them, but you should also expect that at some point in the future we will talk about the "Anthropic Graveyard".
Vertical integration was always in the cards, unfortunately.<p>Whiteboarding is the main thing I do in my AI build processes outside of Claude - if they can do it native + multiplayer, it's going to be a huge UX improvement for a lot of users.
> Shows that the regular avenues of revenue growth are slowing down<p>Why does it show that? Maybe they have tens of billions of dollars and the bandwidth to do more.
Which will cause customers to leave. Good thing I just bought a fresh batch of popcorn from Costco.
I guess this is what's supposed to be their moat: Owning your data. Not a bad idea. Yes, you could prompt these tools into being yourself, but once all of the org's data lives in Claude because "we already pay for the license" it'll be hard to switch model provider.
It's only moat after they capture enough companies. Right now, most big organizations are deeply embedded with Microsoft for similar reasons, and the rest use Google. Can't really see them switching to Anthropic. Maybe they'll be popular with startups though.
Just yesterday we decided we'd discuss designs natively in Claude, rather than putting them in our collaboration suite (Confluence) to discuss them.<p>So Anthropic is a Google-Microsoft-Atlassian competitor now. But I was happy with designing in Claude because it's artistic and lenient to mistake; I'd be super-unhappy to put my sales figures and customer lists in Claude and discover it invented the numbers.
Smart move for Anthropic. They've embedded into businesses and are now aiming at being the Google Workspace equivalent.<p>Next step, domains and email?<p>Also this differs from Claude design imo - which was too token heavy and not easy enough for a human to manipulate without prompting.
Here, the human and agent user have a similar level of control.
I have a different approach to the industry when it comes to work documents.<p>I'm building <a href="https://smalldocs.org" rel="nofollow">https://smalldocs.org</a> / <a href="https://github.com/espressoplease/smalldocs" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/espressoplease/smalldocs</a>. My take is that the siloed approach of previous document formats is now redundant. The document formats were isolated because we needed heavy tools for humans to do the work. Now we need lightweight javascript predominately for rending as agents do the work, so document formats can be blended.<p>This means SmallDocs allows an agent to put together a document (the underlying format is markdown with rich custom rendering on top) with text, diagrams, a multi tab spreadsheet, charts, code, slides, etc.<p>Some example SmallDocs:<p>* AlphaFold 3: capabilities, evidence and operational limits (diagram, spreadsheets, charts, code, math): <a href="https://smalldocs.org/s/k9BtoviHg1eMsWzrSDBVZM#k=v0oIAbORXDjpXjTQsLBP3DW3JS5Rw-s0GEVlZbS_W_w" rel="nofollow">https://smalldocs.org/s/k9BtoviHg1eMsWzrSDBVZM#k=v0oIAbORXDj...</a><p>* Profitable growth can run out of cash (slides, spreadsheet, charts): <a href="https://smalldocs.org/s/nfCr0EEduLQwZAr0_v9ZR2#k=tv_BjigEYwt02icp7O5iovQYw-cmVWCMRmc7qXOnaU4" rel="nofollow">https://smalldocs.org/s/nfCr0EEduLQwZAr0_v9ZR2#k=tv_BjigEYwt...</a>
> Working with Claude on a project often meant moving the output over to another tool or program, where Claude didn’t have live access to follow progress and changes. Now, your documents, boards, sheets, and dashboards can stay in Claude, with access for your team to continue editing together.<p>I read this as: We'll build anything and everything into Claude eventually.<p>How does this work long-term? Is the new reality going to be picking an AI provider for all of your SaSS tooling, similar to Cloud providers for infra? Hopefully competition thrives.
That's the goal. They're desperately trying to make their platform 'sticky'. I see OpenAI using similar tactics with Spaces and Dots.<p>Dots in particular display some insidious methodology, they've hidden the "programmable" portions of an agent. They want to make it 'magic' (all your work goes through a single tool) but... that's pretty much exactly what businesses DON'T want. We need to see what it's doing, accessing, working with, underlying data, etc... It's an explicit business requirement for us.<p>The more they can 'hide' what the backend does, the harder it is to get away from the product.<p>Buuuuut, I don't think it's going to work. I can still export it somehow if I want to, and it would probably take 10-15 minutes... The whole point of these agents is that they're 'plug and play' with whatever technology you want.<p>And if they don't build them this way, someone will whip up an open source version that does it cheaper and more transparently in a couple of weeks.<p>Software being free now hits both of these companies exactly where they want protection.
> We need to see what it's doing, accessing, working with, underlying data, etc... It's an explicit business requirement for us.<p>this is my biggest gripe with dot. it doesn't integrate very well with my "agent ecosystem". It doesn't see my boxen. It doesn't load any agents.md. It like... is on an island and the only way it talks to the world is.... opaque magic.
[dead]
> I read this as: We'll build anything and everything into Claude eventually.<p>Well, isn't that the natural end result of an AGI?<p>No more software, no more deciding what apps you need. It's all just Claude. Except now you're pulling 10kW to add up a column of numbers.
Wasn’t this the point of MCP (also invented by Anthropic) to establish interop for tool use?
I mean, I don't think it's that different from the current reality of businesses just picking Microsoft or Google as their one-stop-shop for business software. There will actually be more competition now, as Anthropic and OpenAI will be added to the mix.
> We'll build anything and everything into Claude eventually.<p>I think thats more like: "We'll build anything and everything into Claude eventually with the statistical median level of vibe-coded features."<p>That might work for some use cases but I doubt serious Excel nerds are going to drop it because Claude has a spreadsheet like tool.
>How does this work long-term? Is the new reality going to be picking an AI provider for all of your SaSS tooling,<p>I suspect the goal is partly starting a walled garden.<p>"Llms are interchangeable? Our harness/toolset isn't".<p>It's a way to get a moat I guess.<p>It doesn't sound like a business for the scale they're aiming for though. Taking a bite of the MS office's pie doesn't seem to me like a trillion dollar company move.
Claude becomes a no-code platform with all the same shortcomings they have.<p>The rest of the world moves on using LLMs as tools.<p>Anthropic is eventually bought and stripped for parts.
The playbook Anthropic is following with integrating everything innto their platform is the same playbook that enabled Microsoft, Google, Baidu, Amazon, Apple, etc al to get and stay where they are.
Competition will thrive as it always does, wouldn’t worry about that. In this case I view Claude as more of the competitor here. Ever try using Co-pilot in Microsoft Office?<p>“Please remove this page break I can’t figure out how to get rid of and someone else added”<p>Co-pilot: “Sorry I’m unable to do that but you can follows these same instructions you can find on the Internet to accomplish that”.<p>Claude: “I will literally rebuild Word from the ground up to solve this problem if that’s what it takes (but here is how to actually solve your problem), oh and do you want this exported in the best format for this software, this other software, or in these 15 file formats? Oh I don’t have native capabilities for that format - ok let’s build a script and convert….”<p>You get the picture. Competition is here, and it will get even better. Many SaaS companies will die. Good. Many of them only delivered short-term value solving artificial constrains or gaps in software.
I will never use this, and neither should anyone else.
Apple created IWork: Pages, Numbers, Keynote. Google created Workspaces with Docs, Sheets, Slides. Open source options like LibreOffice and OpenOffice exist. Google is the only one that has managed to take any significant market share from Microsoft. I don't think Anthropic has the focus to follow it through.
Apple has wrecked its suite this year: In every possible way, you are redirected to their subscription-based AI library of components (Apple Content). Want to add a square in Keynote? Use our AI library!<p>All the buttons of the UI: Gone! Replaced by a single button: Apple Content.<p>I was an absolute fan of Apple Keynote, been spreading it to my employees for 15 years, it was bare-bones, straightforward, uncluttered and direct; I just struggle do SIMPLE things in it now!
The interesting part is that anyone can create these productivity apps now; all that Anthropic has that others don't is the model moat. Namely, people can access models cheaper in Claude.ai compared to paying API prices for other people's tools, and Anthropic's tools come bundled with the discounted model access itself.<p>In other words they're able to create an entire ecosystem around this cost advantage and there's very little others (without their own models with higher cost-performance than public ones) can do about it.
I don't know, I feel like it's nice to have most of these things built into claude desktop as a quick way for Claude to mock up or show me what the data looks like but ultimately want to use my specialized app for the work anyway. If anything, its the ultimate combination - show me the work quickly here first, then port it to the final state inside Excel, Powerpoing, Figma, whatever.
I use artifacts extensively in my work. I use spreadsheets only occasionally at work. Even when using them, the focus was on sharing information through tables rather than complex functions. That was already half a year ago. These days, it's more common to just create them as artifacts and share them.
Now that the spreadsheet is in the artifact, it should be easy to find the Claude artifact’s spreadsheet whenever you need it. I don't think it will expand to Google or MS Spreadsheets.<p>We must consider that if tools with these basic features continue to be created, people will gradually start using them, eventually leading to a dependency on specific tools.<p>That ecosystem is expected to grow substantially.
These products have already failed.<p>As a traditional company, if I had invested with a large team to build out these three tools. I wouldn't launch it with a short blog post. It shows how serious they are at maintaining them. People forget there are entire teams/companies supporting SaaS products. Not just the engineers that built them.
Every time I see an LLM company release tools to compete with existing tool suites it feels like they're just proving we can all now build these quickly ourselves. At least a software engineer could.<p>Build vs buy keeps getting pushed further to build, which is great for people in general but it feels like Anthropic is digging its own grave proving the only value it can provide is the model itself, and from what it looks like that's still scaling linearly and unprofitably.
I don’t understand the need for these side quests. Microsoft has a 40 year lead in spreadsheets. You are not going to dethrone them no matter how good your AI’s code is. And no one is asking you for an excel competitor. Fixing the million problems in existing products that users have already raised (aka the boring work) is a much better use of resources.
They are building a walled garden platform the same way Apple and Microsoft does. This isn't at all a surprising move.
I don't see them as side quests but rather as a complement to what they offer.<p>A typical workflow is: connect via MCP to some data source. Do some stats, transformations, etc. Put the data in a format that Claude understands or will understand better later. Make a UI/story out of it. Keep track of your "things" through visualizations.<p>Been using this worlflow extensively now. This is their easy wall garden.
When Google Docs were out, Microsoft already had a 20-year lead. So shouldn't have they made Google Doc?<p>And the story repeats. Google had a 20-year lead in search and LLM definitely has threatened it.
It's a desperation move. They're listing because they're out of runway, they're trying to extend the runway.
Tell that to google sheets or google docs?? At some point you want to easily interoperate with a document or spreadsheet artifact. There aren't great drop in solutions while keeping everything within managed context. Compiling to and from docx or xls files don't make sense. It makes the most sense to spin up your own. What do you expect them to do instead?
I've seen large enterprise customers who adopt GSuite but still have a few thousand Excel licenses because the people who need certain Excel features, just need them. Average user might find Claude Sheets is enough, but it won't replace Excel everywhere anytime soon.
I've not really seen anyone using sheets for serious number crunching tbh. It does cover 90% of use cases though.
40 year lead in bloat and legacy cruft maybe
> You are not going to dethrone them no matter how good your AI’s code is.<p>They absolutely are. Maybe not quickly (let's face it, Excel users are not sprightly), but this is absolutely going to displace Gsuite, and any Excel users who were thinking of moving to it.<p>I expect Google will respond.
> When you’re done brainstorming, Claude can turn the board into a doc or deck, or bring it into tools like Lucid, Miro, or Vani by Zoho, where you can continue working on it with your team.<p>either fully commit to disrupting your customers and keep a walled garden or stop building in the space, this incremental approach will only ship confusion
Bring in Claude Mail and calendar.. then it’s going to be very interesting..
A challenger doesn't necessarily win by doing the incumbent's job better. It wins by making the incumbent's job irrelevant.
Underrated comment.<p>I've been using Claude Slides since it came out, and haven't touched PowerPoint (or any other presentation tools) since. It doesn't do everything PPT does, but it doesn't matter -- it makes turning an idea into a shareable presentation so fast and easy it's kind of crazy. PPT is effectively dead to me. And it was probably in my top 3 used apps just a couple years ago.
What this is long-term is a strategy to pull corporate customers out of existing incumbents and move them into a more efficient, easier system. Humans always want an advantage, which is speed and ease.<p>But the trade-off is a move from a bundled cloud service that is currently unlimited use into a new method of token-based content generation, which can be more expensive via API.<p>It appears to be a business model made directly from the 2000's with expensive mobile phone data charges and overages.
I think the larger play here, both by Anthropic and OpenAI, is how quickly can they become the place of work. Maybe today these products look very basic, but I feel it's part of a larger strategic play for model companies to become office/work suite companies where said suite is powered by their models.
Ironically, I am using Claude to help write <a href="https://omasheet.org" rel="nofollow">https://omasheet.org</a><p>This project comes from a pure love of grids of numbers - and a deep sense that Excel has failed to keep pace with stuff like columnar data (Apache Arrow), fast queries (Rust Polars), proper number types, etc. so tbh don’t feel very threatened.<p>Feedback - good and bad very welcome.
Does anyone know how much work has to go into making one of these products? Are they a very thin veneer over a model? Is there actually a moat here?
Man, I really hope that Google doesn't see this and decide to start scraping their suite to train Gemini. As it stands, anything not explicitly marked as public isn't scraped so there's that modicum of peace but I'll have to start exclusively using Euro-Office/LibreOffice if this gets more traction and Google decides to make the switch.
Claude data is a huge move, much bigger than the other two (even if they end up with more users).<p>All Anthropic needs is to host an S3 clone and they become the default place to put all your company's data because they are the easiest place to analyze the data.
And what company is going to hand over all their data to Anthropic without proper controls, regulatory compliance, sovereignty rules and customer managed encryption and isolation? Could it happen, yes. Will it happen quickly, no.
Claude Code is already being used by tons of large companies. I'm sure they will figure out how to do it pretty quickly.
Just like how no company is going to send their whole repo of source code to Claude Code. Right? Right...?
This is a bonkers take. No company is going to migrate and reconnect their data to Claude.
Lol, not it's not.<p>No company that need that level of data ingest and analysis is using Anthropic's tooling over something that is used industry wide.
This is kind of weird.<p>Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense if they’d just let Claude connect to your Excel/Google Sheets/whatever?<p>Doesn’t even need an MCP or official integration at this point, if there’s computer access there’s access to everything.
Watch them abandon these projects after 6 months.
I don't think they have a proven history of abandoning projects yet. Why would they when the tools they build (agents) can dramatically reduce the costs of maintaining and improving projects?
They'll just ignore any user complaints about them being broken or expensive. Anthropic support is bad.
Good to see them go after the big players<p>Let's get Claude office, Claude auth, Claude notebooks.... maybe call it C Suite.
Coming next... Claude E-mail service.
So LLM provider want to become all-encompasing app/data suite providers. But really this would just shift your data/money from one paid walled garden (Google/Micro$/Adope) into another: so only a lateral move.<p>The better solution would be a uniform 'App Suite of the commons' (open-source) with a plugable/switchable data and inference providers.
"better" as in better for the customer, not better for Anthropic :)<p>Reality is, the crazy valuation given to frontier labs will push them to capture more of the value chain, to make it harder for customers to switch models. Having a best-in-class model is not defensible, long term.
I see they're desperate to lock people and their data into these applications for when the open weights models undercut their main business. Not sure it'll justify the ridiculous valuation, but they need to try something.
We aren't getting AGI soon if all they can do is copycat existing business software. Why would they do this when superintelligence is around the corner with pay by token access to it?
Claude365<p>ClaudeCloudServices<p>ClaudeERP<p>ClaudeCRM<p>ClaudeNeuralLink<p>ClaudeConsciousnessUpload
The one thing I do really like about Claude / Anthropic is that Claude.ai docs (especially its ability to create HTML docs) seems substantially better than Gemini or ChatGPT.<p>These seem like natural extensions that I'm sure will be very useful.
I really don't get why you would launch this instead of doubling down on your strengths, which are coding and cybersecurity models. Possibly at a better price point than your competitors.
Did somebody say vendor lock-in?<p>There's a reason my co still has Slack and it ain't because of its great features and bug-free app. It's because every written conversation we've ever had is in there.
Spreadsheets are becoming standard UX elements like text boxes...
Unless Microsoft and Google get their butts into gear, Claude is going to become the basis for running a business and disrupt Office and Workspace.
I did my first claude slides presentation. I don't see myself voluntarily loading up PowerPoint again.<p>Now it'll be harder to do the same for word and harder still for excel, but word is doable, and claude can build one off tools better than excel can, so I definitely think that MS should be wary.
Honestly, Excel seems easier to me, with the caveat that Excel serves two purposes.<p>The "I need some place to organize tabular data" use case is so different that I'm not considering it for the rest of this.<p>But for actual computation, if you throw it in Claude, it'll figure it out. It's much easier to do than to use Excel. Claude itself isn't limited to Excel; it can use pandas and the much, much improved plotting tools compared to Excel. I'm an OpenAI guy myself and used codecs to have it make me ggplot2 graphs, but then I forgot to specify it and it just used straight-up Python — I think it actually generated them as SVG files. As sad as I was about it, they looked better than the ones I had it make using ggplot2.<p>Regular Excel doesn't even compare there; not only can ggplot2 make many additional types of graphs, but SVG plotting, Python, and pandas can make literally any chart you want, including things like polar-coordinate charts.
Are they? Still seems way more convenient to just connect Claude to whatever people are already running.<p>Nobody is replacing excel anywhere.
This isn’t true. Today we needed to build a model for our startup to forecast headcount. Usually I’d use excel. Instead Claude built an app for me. More powerful features in a fraction of the time.
You built an "app" though - you could have done that with the model du jour, right?<p>You now have that app forever and nothing connects it to Claude other than the comment saying "this isn't just rounding — it's the single source of truth for the shared ledger boundary, not a formatting concern."<p>While I agree that spreadsheets are likely to be used less by regular folk, the idea that we'll become reliant on claude feels unlikely.
You're a single person in a startup.<p>For good or bad, big companies run on Excel.<p>At my last job - a large tech company - if it wasn't in Excel, then engineers and HR wouldn't use it. The team had a tool that collected data from various databases for the end user and did some analytics. The code was in Python. The output was an Excel file.<p>I asked why they didn't use pandas.<p>"Because the users are just going to take the output and put it in Excel."<p>It was a very successful tool. No one <i>needed</i> to use it so we had to ensure users <i>liked</i> it. All due to the team lead's wisdom on how big companies operate.<p>They also wanted us to autogenerate PowerPoint files. We gave up on that. The spec is a mess.
They run on excel today. They will run on code in the future. Excel was a way for normies to write code with all the limitations that came with it. Now normies can just write the code.<p>I used to work as a trader for a major investment bank. Everything was excel. I can’t see it staying that way.
> Now normies can just write the code.<p>Normies know enough Excel to debug their "code". Will they be able to debug code AI produces?<p>> I used to work as a trader for a major investment bank. Everything was excel. I can’t see it staying that way.<p>How much of that Excel usage is part of the regular flow? As in several different teams using and sharing Excel files with a common template, so they can have macros that depend on the shape of data in the spreadsheet?<p>If the traders are mostly just using it for their own individual analyses, I can believe you. If they're sharing the Excel files across disparate departments ... it will be tougher.<p>A <i>much</i> simpler solution that a full blown replacement is simply having AI read, understand and edit Excel files. Why go with a completely different solution if the AI can solve all your problems within Excel?
> "Because the users are just going to take the output and put it in Excel."<p>I wonder how long ago this was, as now it's likely that Excel file will now be opened and interpreted by an LLM rather than Excel. The corporate world is changing fast.
[dead]
My experience is that a lot of former Excel use cases have been completely subsumed by Claude/LLMs. Excel files may risk becoming just an interchange format.
A 100% compatible version of Excel is well within Anthropic's capabilities.
Nadella already said that they expect to have more revenue from agents than from humans.<p>They are shifting to building stuff for agents, not for humans.
Yep, just need Claude Mail (Cmail, anyone?) and Cluade Docs and you have a strong competitor to Google Workspaces. I'd consider using Cmail to start getting out of googles ad ecosystem.
You mean like slack did?
Claude? no.<p>Omarchy? yep.
Taken straight from ClickUp's product bundle list.
Claude is missing an email delivery of these artifacts.
Nice to see this is also on Teams and Enterprise, naturally.
CLAUDE(/openAI) Everything soon - at least before the IPO.
Is that really a smart idea with respect to the IPO? Why not leave the risk and reward of building slop on top of AI to the industry?<p>For one, maintaining a lot of apps and connectors costs time and focus for a marginal return. Also it burns relationships with everyone building on top of your API if they can be disrupted anytime.
The need a reporting and analytics offering (if they don't have one already). If i can tell it "ok report over this data, join it together on these fildss, bucket by that field" then review and say "no wait, filter by this other field and only show me addresses in Ohio... oh wait let the viewer choose a state and also let them choose a financial quarter. Find out our financial quarters from our website. ok add an appropriate graph to show change of field X over time" then finally "publish and notify users the report is available with a link". That would make a part of my job a lot easier.
Claude vendor lock-in - Claude: not thanks! I prefer you as an easily interchangeable commodity that plays an intermittent role in my broader AI strategy.
ugh, another thing that no one is going to use.<p>Their competition is offering good enough models for vastly better prices and they are making products that their customers don't need.<p>I feel like there will be a site similar to google graveyard for all these AI+X products that OAI and ANT are throwing out.
Would much rather use something open-source than something that locks my company into an AI provider. Hell, I'd rather have an AI build something that rips off these three products than get locked in.
RIP Gsuite.
Anthropic is playing in Alphabet's field
more products pitched to gullible marks. at least they know their target audience
[dead]