Connect with us

News

Replit’s Amjad Masad on the Cursor deal, fighting Apple, and why he’d rather not sell

info

Published

on

55242949643 f997627b64 k.jpg

Amjad Masad has been building Replit for a decade, but the last 18 months have been something else entirely. The AI coding assistant company went from $2.8 million in revenue in all of 2024 to tracking toward what Masad describes as a billion-dollar annual run rate.

At TechCrunch’s sold-out StrictlyVC event in San Francisco on Thursday night, we covered a lot of ground in a short time, beginning with the question everyone in the industry is asking right now: in a world where rival Cursor is reportedly in talks to be acquired by SpaceX for $60 billion, is Replit also bound to sell? We also got into Replit’s net revenue retention — a measure of how much existing customers expand their spending — which Masad says is reaching as high as 300%, his willingness to take Apple to court over what he called outright lies in its App Store battle with Replit, and the possibility of the company beginning to invest in its own customers.

On the question of independence, Masad was unambiguous. Unlike Cursor, which he said has been operating at negative 23% gross margins, he argued Replit has the economics to make that path viable — even if he stopped short of ruling out a sale entirely.

The following has been edited for length and clarity:

TC: Cursor’s reported SpaceX deal was the talk of the industry last week. What did you make of it?

AM: It’s kind of hard being an independent, smaller AI company that’s building on foundation models, especially if you’re burning a ton of cash. Part of the reporting suggested Cursor has negative 23% margins, and if you’re also wanting to invest in training models, that makes it incredibly hard to stay independent.

For us at Replit, partly because we target a different customer set, we’ve been able to run the business more rationally. We’ve been gross margin positive for over a year. We’re slightly more expensive, but we provide a lot more. Our audience tends to be mostly non-technical users who previously haven’t been able to create any software. We provide an end-to-end platform — from the prompt all the way to a deployed application that can scale. We handle security, databases, database migration. And we’ve been doing this long enough that we’ve built a lot of those primitives into the platform.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Is Replit for sale? I would assume you are talking with potential acquirers all the time; it’s your fiduciary responsibility.

Yeah. We have amazing partners, and they sometimes bring up these topics. But we’re going to try to stay independent. I would love for us to remain an independent company. We’ve been around for 10 years, before it was even accepted that you could make apps just from ideas. We were talking about creating a billion software creators back in 2018 at YC, and people sometimes actually laughed at that dream. Now that dream is possible, and we kicked off this revolution with our agentic coding experience in September 2024. It just feels like we can take it much further.

You work closely with Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI. If you had to rank them — who’s doing it best?

Anthropic is still undefeated on the core agentic loop. They have the best tool calling; the agent can stay coherent much longer. GPT-5 is catching up quickly. Google’s Flash family of models is just amazing on price-performance. If you want something fast and cheap, they’re actually beating open source right now. We use all three, and honestly I wouldn’t discount the newer labs either. Reflection AI is coming out with open-source models we’re hearing great things about. And the Chinese models are impressive — Kimi is as good as an Anthropic-generation model from January, so it’s only about three months behind.

When you’re in a bake-off for an enterprise deal, what wins it for you?

Most of our sales are inbound or organic — very product-led. We’ve acquired customers like Zillow and Meta purely through people adopting the product and then raising their hand to buy an enterprise plan. When it does go top-down and there’s a formal bake-off, we usually win on product. But even in cases where we might be missing a feature, once it hits the C-suite and the IT group, Replit wins on security. A lot of vibe-coding tools will generate a website and connect it to an external database — great products, but it makes security much harder, because the database is open to the public and you need to configure row-level security, which is especially difficult for non-technical builders. Replit being full stack, with the database built into the project and not open to the public — that makes the app inherently more secure.

We also spent 10 years battling crypto scammers and hackers, so our cybersecurity function is as good as a dedicated cybersecurity startup. Every time you deploy an app on Replit, we create an entirely new isolated project on Google Cloud. We inherit Google’s security model.

Can we talk about churn? How long do you hold onto customers if the best prototypes eventually get rebuilt into a company’s existing stack?

Churn is very, very low, and net retention is incredibly high — 300% in some cases. What we actually hear from customers is that when engineers get nervous and try to rebuild an app into their own stack, they often make it worse. Once enterprises get comfortable with the full Replit stack — especially when we set up a single-tenant environment for them — they keep the apps on Replit. Bain & Company, for example, replaced Tableau and Power BI with Replit and Databricks.

There’s a growing concern about AI bloat — non-technical users generate far more code and burn through far more tokens. That’s good for you [given your usage-based fees]. What about your customers?

We don’t have a lot of regrettable spend. Enterprises are very ROI conscious, and they tell us about the returns they’re getting. For the most part they feel the investment is totally worth it — often one, two, three orders of magnitude. If they spend $100,000 a month with Replit, they’re usually generating $2 million, $3 million, $10 million in some kind of return.

Let’s talk about Apple. Another rival, Lovable, just got an app-building app approved by the App Store this week. Replit has been in App Store purgatory, with Apple blocking your updates for months. How much does that hurt you?

It’s not life or death — we could lose the app and it wouldn’t do anything meaningful to our business. But it’s an app people genuinely love. We’ve been on the App Store for four years. Kids in underprivileged communities learn to code on Replit on their Android devices. Executives use it in meetings.

The reason Replit got blocked when others weren’t, we believe, is that Replit makes iOS apps. When we launched that capability in December, there were charts going around showing how many apps were getting into the App Store through us. We think Apple feels threatened by that.

Apple’s stated reason is that you’re downloading new code to the device [after the approval process], which violates their guidelines.

That’s a lie. And we can prove it in court if we have to.

Is that going to happen?

I hope not. I’m a fan of Apple, and I’d love to collaborate and build something great together. We’re happy to send customers to Xcode [Apple’s own development environment]. But you can’t run a marketplace that a billion people have access to and make decisions that are discriminatory or based on whims.

Just wondering if, like Nvidia, OpenAI and others, you’re thinking about investing in your own customers in exchange for equity.

We’ve thought a lot about it, and it is a consideration. I’ve personally invested in a few startups that started on Replit before they made any money. Some of them, like Magic School — a teacher decided to take his time during COVID to learn a little bit of vibe coding and built an AI app for other teachers. He found this problem that in America, we burn out a lot of teachers. He wanted to use AI to reduce the workload. He did that, and he made $20 million in the first year. Other companies that started on Replit, I think, are valued at half a billion dollars. The entrepreneurship happening on Replit right now is genuinely exciting. We integrated with Stripe a few months ago, and the transactions flowing through Replit are growing triple digits month over month. Pretty soon, our customers will be making more revenue than we are.

You can watch our full conversation with Masad below:

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

AIICO Insurance Denies False Allegations, Sues Obinna Nwosu Over Defamation

info

Published

on

By

BY NKECHI BAECHE-ESEZOBOR—In a decisive move to protect its corporate reputation, AIICO Insurance Plc has taken legal action against a dismissed agent, Mr. Obinna Adolphus Nwosu, suing him for defamation after he circulated unsubstantiated claims to regulators, the media, and the general public.

For the avoidance of doubt, Mr. Nwosu’s appointment as an agent of AIICO Insurance Plc was terminated. Following the termination of his appointment, the Company published a public notice in national newspapers on 26 June 2025, expressly warning customers and members of the public against continuing to transact or maintain any business relationship with him on behalf of, or in connection with, AIICO Insurance Plc.

A statement released by the company reads: “AIICO Insurance Plc has become aware of a sustained campaign of false and misleading allegations being circulated by Mr. Obinna Adolphus Nwosu, a former agent of the Company, to various stakeholders, including regulatory authorities, law enforcement agencies, media organisations, bloggers, employees and other members of the public.

“Notwithstanding this, Mr. Nwosu has continued to circulate false and misleading narratives about the Company through various channels, including digital platforms and direct communications with stakeholders.

“His persistent and increasingly aggressive efforts to disseminate these claims have the potential to cause unwarranted damage to the Company’s reputation and create unnecessary concern among its employees, customers and other stakeholders.

“AIICO Insurance Plc wishes to state unequivocally that these allegations are false and should be treated with the utmost caution. Rather than engage in a media exchange or submit to a trial in the court of public opinion, the Company has elected to pursue the matter through the appropriate legal channels and has consequently commenced a defamation action against Mr. Nwosu at the Lagos State High Court.”

The statement added that “AIICO Insurance Plc will not be drawn into a public exchange with a former agent who has chosen to continue making unsubstantiated allegations while the matter is being pursued through the courts. The Company remains confident that the facts will be properly examined and determined through the established judicial process.

It further urged the media, regulators, employees, customers and the public are therefore urged to exercise due caution and discountenance the false and misleading narratives being circulated by Mr. Nwosu.

The statement also called on Nwosu to  make himself available to receive the relevant court processes and allow the matter to proceed in accordance with the law, rather than continuing to prosecute his claims through digital media and direct approaches to individuals within and outside the Company.

While noting that any genuine grievance or complaint should be presented through the appropriate regulatory, investigative or judicial channels, where it can be properly examined and determined based on verifiable facts and evidence.

The company reaffirmed assured “AIICO Insurance Plc remains committed to the highest standards of integrity, accountability and transparency.

The Company will continue to pursue all lawful avenues available to protect its reputation, its employees, customers and other stakeholders, and to ensure that the matter is resolved through due process and in accordance with the law.

The post AIICO Insurance Denies False Allegations, Sues Obinna Nwosu Over Defamation appeared first on Business Today NG.

Continue Reading

News

Michael Polansky is training an AI model on skin that’s still alive

info

Published

on

By

Michael Polansky.jpg

Michael Polansky is remarkably unassuming for someone operating in a corner of the world known for outsize egos.

Seated at a leafy patio outside a popular bakery in Mill Valley, an affluent town about 15 miles north of San Francisco, Polansky — bespectacled, his fresh face framed by dark hair shot through with gray — has the look and the friendly demeanor of a young professor.

He is, in fact, both the co-founder of a buzzy AI and biology startup called Outer Biosciences and the creative, business, and romantic partner to Stefani Germanotta — better known as Lady Gaga. It’s an unlikely double life. On the one hand, the couple invariably moves in the world that comes with celebrity; on the other, he’s running an outfit that has spent years figuring out how to keep living human tissue alive outside the body — for over a month, so far — without anyone outside the company knowing.

He didn’t see any of it coming. Polansky grew up in Minnesota and went on to Harvard, where he studied applied mathematics and computer science, graduating in 2006. Afterward, he logged three years at the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates — “a very unique place,” Polansky says over coffee, and one where he had “a really good experience,” even if it wasn’t a place he was going to “wake up and be excited about . . .every day.”

His pilgrimage from Bridgewater to Silicon Valley ran through Minnesota. By coincidence, Sean Parker’s assistant at the time had been Polansky’s neighbor growing up. At a 2009 wedding in their home state, she mentioned that Parker was looking for someone to work with him. Polansky already knew who Parker was and was looking to move west. The two had dinner in New York, “hit it off immediately,” and, as Polansky tells it, he quit Bridgewater the next day and moved to San Francisco.

He first landed a role as a principal at Founders Fund when the firm was run by its four original partners — Peter Thiel, Sean Parker, Luke Nosek and Ken Howery – with Polansky and another young principal at the time, Brian Singerman, sharing an office. “It was a really, really great experience,” Polansky says.

When Parker left Founders Fund after becoming liquid in his Facebook stock and wanted to build out his own family office, he brought Polansky with him. Polansky ran that office — handling Parker’s business, investment, and philanthropic interests, including helping stand up the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy (where Polansky remains executive director) until COVID, when his life “moved in a different direction.”

That change had a lot to do with Germanotta. Polansky met her in late 2019 at one of Parker’s birthday parties. Charmingly, the meeting came at the urging of her mother, Cynthia Germanotta, president of the Born This Way Foundation, whom Polansky had come to know through his philanthropic work.

“She had said, you know, for months and months, ‘I want to set you up with my daughter,’” Polansky recalls. “I was like, I think you’re making fun of me.” She wasn’t. When their own mothers later met, he says, laughing, “it all made perfect sense.” (His mother and Germanotta’s mother are now close friends.)

Their relationship is a full partnership, professionally and personally. Notably, for Gaga’s most recent world tour, which began in July of last year and ended in April, the couple managed a massive operation across three 747s, something Polansky compares to running “a 200-person startup that travels around the world every day.”

It also includes Haus Labs, the cosmetics brand Germanotta initially built “on her kitchen floor,” Polansky says, instead of simply licensing her name to an existing company. That business, based in El Segundo, California, an operation with roughly 70 employees, is reportedly thriving.

Germanotta also sits on the board of Outer Biosciences, and the two companies collaborate at the margins. For example, Outer Biosciences’ chief scientist, Kyung-Jin Jang, sits on Haus Labs’ scientific advisory board, and the companies have run some joint projects.

Says Polansky, beaming as he talks about her from our sun-dappled table: “People really haven’t gotten to know a certain side of her publicly … She’s such a brilliant businessperson.”

From cancer to tissue in a dish

While Polansky is also a businessperson, he’s not a scientist. He got into life sciences “accidentally,” he says, through more than a decade spent alongside Parker in cancer immunotherapy, a field that was “very fringe” when they entered it.

Outer Biosciences, co-founded in 2022 by Polansky (CEO), Jang, Chris Hinojosa (CTO), and Stanley King (chief business officer), grew out of frustration that the pace of innovation in biology and chemistry has never matched software, in large part because there’s no ethical way to run experiments directly on people. Meanwhile, the proxies scientists rely on instead — animal models, simplified cell cultures, lab-grown organoids — are poor stand-ins for how a real human organ behaves.

So Outer Biosciences took a different approach. Instead of engineering a synthetic organ, the company sources human skin that would otherwise be discarded after surgery – mostly plastic surgery – through what it describes as vetted non-profit and commercial biobanks and brokers operating under “institutional review board oversight and documented donor consent,” principally the National Disease Research Interchange and the Cooperative Human Tissue Network. (Both outfits receive federal funding from the NIH and the National Cancer Institute without being federally operated.)

Polansky is careful to note that there is no single government tissue network that qualifies buyers. He says Outer Biosciences pays fees to these suppliers on a cost-recovery basis rather than purchasing tissue outright. He also says the company spent roughly two years on building that pipeline and handling the protocols required to receive that tissue “within hours” of surgery, while it’s still living.

Asked about the donors’ privacy, he says that every sample arrives already de-identified — stripped upstream by the supplying organizations of names, contact information and other direct identifiers. A proprietary support system developed by his team then feeds the tissue nutrients and removes metabolic waste, extending its viable life well past the industry norm.

That norm, by the way, is a matter of days. That’s enough time to test for acute toxicity, but not for slower biological processes like collagen remodeling, pigmentation change, or barrier repair that take weeks to unfold. (Dermatologists routinely tell patients to expect changes over a matter of weeks for this same reason.)

Outer Biosciences’ system meanwhile keeps tissue alive for up to a month, says Polansky, who says it retains its “day-zero architecture and preserves its day-zero epidermal, stromal and immune-associated molecular programs.” In plainer English, that means that 30-day-old tissue cared for by the company looks a lot like day-one tissue, but it isn’t fully indistinguishable from it.

Sunburn is one of the clearer examples of what that extra time buys Outer Biosciences. Polansky says that its researchers can induce UVB damage in living tissue, then track the stress, inflammatory, and recovery-related responses that follow over the following weeks as an information-gathering exercise. He says the team isn’t “healing” the skin but rather watching an injury happen and then watching the biology that follows it over time.

Perhaps anticipating pushback from the scientific community, Polansky is careful about how he frames the company’s achievements when this reporter asks questions about rival technologies. The startup’s value, he says, isn’t any one piece of what it’s doing but how the pieces fit together: human tissue that can be kept alive for weeks, a diverse donor pool that Outer Biosciences’ team can subject to controlled experimental conditions, and repeated molecular measurements taken along the way.

And it’s all fed into one, closed self-enforcing system. An AI model predicts which untested chemicals are likely to have a beneficial effect on a specific skin function. Those chemicals get run through the living-tissue system. Then the results, whether the prediction was right or wrong, get fed back into the model, improving the next round of guesses.

It’s a giant improvement from where things started, says Polansky. Early on, the company relied on a “brute force” approach, mining scientific literature and partnering with the National Cancer Institute on natural compounds from extreme environments. That phase produced a couple of leads over about 18 months, but with AI layered in, the company is now generating a new candidate roughly every six weeks, with six leads currently active in its pipeline and several dozen additional “hits” logged.

What makes that pace truly astonishing, Polansky says as the crowd around us thins out, is the size of the current universe of skin-active ingredients.

It’s almost impossible to know the exact number, but it’s small. “Active ingredient” means something different informally than it does formally. While the FDA maintains rules covering 13 categories of over-the-counter skin drugs (think sunscreen, antifungals), across all of them, only about 120 to 130 active ingredients are approved. Add cosmetic ingredients backed by actual research, says Polansky, and that number is closer to 200.

This, of course, presents opportunities.

Outer Biosciences is discovering cosmetic ingredients, not drugs, so there’s no FDA approval to seek out. Instead, the route runs through two steps: first, getting the ingredient a standardized industry name; then safety testing under guidelines set by the OECD, a Paris-based international body whose member countries agree to accept each other’s properly run studies — meaning a study done correctly in one participating country is accepted in the other 40-plus.

A partner outfit then commercializes the whole thing. Indeed, rather than build its own consumer brand, Outer Biosciences right now plans to license or sell its finished ingredients to beauty or pharma outfits that will then formulate these into actual products (a serum, a cream) and bring them to market under their own brands. Already, four of Outer Biosciences’ six current leads look likely to reach commercialization, Polansky says.

In the meantime, the company is generating money from collaborative research partnerships, including a pharmaceutical partner that’s studying why certain cancer drugs cause severe skin rashes, and consumer beauty brands that are testing whether Outer Biosciences’ data holds up against their own product-development and marketing needs.

If Polansky is raising more money for the company currently, he won’t say. To date, the company has raised roughly $23 million, with early backers including Wing Ventures, Initialized, and Polansky’s own investing firm, Hawktail, among others. The company employs 19 people, with all but Polansky based just outside Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Asked why he’s chosen now to talk about the company after years of near-total silence — he says he barely discussed it even with close friends — Polansky points to the data the team is beginning to amass and the confidence that has given them. “Trying to do this in private is hard,” he says, as the wait staff start flipping chairs onto tabletops, signaling it’s closing time at the bakery. “We kind of want to start working in public now,” he adds, shrugging.

Outer Biosciences is not the only company chasing this idea, even if its use of real tissue, rather than synthetic, is distinctive.

Vivodyne — a Philadelphia-based competitor building lab-grown human organ tissue — just this month announced it has raised close to $80 million to date, including a $38 million seed round and a $40 million Series A, both led by Khosla Ventures.

Other rivals are pursuing various flavors of organ-on-a-chip and microphysiological systems for preclinical testing.

Polansky doesn’t seem especially preoccupied with any of them — less, it seems, out of arrogance than because he seems to have his hands full. Besides, there’s plenty of room for everyone in this moment. Unlike AI companies training on scraping the internet, there is no “biology internet” to scrape.

And Outer Biosciences has two other reasons to focus on its own knitting. First, the data it generates doesn’t exist anywhere else, which, conceivably, makes the company’s position more defensible, if a lot slower, to build than “traditional” software-based AI startups. It’s also cheaper to run, with modest compute demands compared with training a large language model. In fact, all of the company’s AI work currently runs on-premise, not in the cloud, because “we don’t want the data in the cloud,” Polansky says.

Whether over time, Outer Biosciences becomes a standalone commercial-ingredients business, licenses its discoveries, or eventually reorganizes around a single breakout compound, Polansky says he hasn’t settled on – and the team doesn’t need to. The more important goal, he says, is a predictive model that’s accurate enough that the company can spot promising directions in skin biology without having to run every experiment physically first, opening up a rate of discovery in dermatology that doesn’t currently exist.

For now, instead, the work of turning a promising compound into a real product — the formulation, the manufacturing scale-up, the supply chain, the safety testing — is still done manually by the same scientists who discover the compounds in the first place. Building out a product-development team, with people who’ve done this kind of work before, is next on the roadmap.

“I think it’s going to be fun,” he says, “to have people know that this is what we’ve been doing.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Continue Reading

Trending