also @arvid220u and @msc, after careful consideration, here are my thoughts(maybe naive):
I recognize that Cursor is a leader in AI-powered code editors, even surpassing Microsoft’s Copilot in capabilities. However, regarding model usage limitations, I believe the best approach would be to NEVER LET USERS REALIZE THE LIMITATION. Since even more general AI tools like Perplexity.ai don’t impose limitations on their pro models for basic usage.
The key is to let users focus on what truly matters when using Cursor - how they want to code with AI assistance, rather than worrying about reaching usage limits. By which I would rather there is an alternative pricing model for pro users(perhaps $25) per month, with which USERS NEVER NEED TO WORRY ABOUT LIMITATIONS. From a consumer psychology perspective, usage limits are likely the last thing users want to consider when utilizing AI during subscription.
Meanwhile, I think the philosophy of “making it simple or even transparent for users” isn’t just Microsoft’s approach with Windows, but also should be Cursor’s guiding principle. I believe it is, which I felt strongly when using Cursor. Then why not push it further, allowing users to focus more solely on their coding work?
I’m not sure whether canceling the limitation forever is or not a good idea from the perspective of a corporation’s sustainable development since I’ve never been a CEO or CFO. But you do, then what about just considering the recent popular case of an 8-year-old girl using Cursor to generate a simple “ChatBot” program:
"Do we want the girl to ever worry about usage limitations when she’s bought the service? Should she have to understand the concept of model limitations, what the token limitation acts for a model, or even what an AI model is technically? "