Did Google spend $2.4 billion just for an empty shell? The newly launched "Next-Gen AI IDE" was exposed to have "copied" Windsurf, bugs included.

Google released Antigravity the day before yesterday, a brand - new IDE touted as the "next - generation agentic development platform". The official promotion emphasizes that it can plan, execute, and verify the entire development process, seemingly indicating that AI programming has entered a new stage. However, the earliest developers who got their hands on it have been complaining: tasks often interrupt due to "model overload", the credit limit is exhausted within tens of minutes, and it's even difficult to complete a full test. The experience can be described as "starting with a fiasco".

While developers were still debating "whether Antigravity really works", another more intriguing clue emerged: the foundation of Antigravity is not as "brand - new" as it appears externally.

Initially, people noticed that its interface and behavior were very similar to a branch of VS Code. But as more developers delved deeper into the analysis, a bolder speculation was put forward: Antigravity is not just a fork of VS Code; it's more like a proprietary branch version of Windsurf. Windsurf is a closed - source IDE, and Google paid approximately $2.4 billion for its technology license.

A $2.4 - billion Open - source Fork? 

In the field of software development, "fork" usually refers to copying a codebase based on an open - source project and evolving independently on that basis. However, this situation is different: Google "forked" a closed - source, proprietary commercial software. Technically, any codebase can be forked, but in terms of licensing and transparency, this kind of behavior is completely different from the fork in the open - source world.

Therefore, someone coined a new term for this kind of fork: PORK, which stands for "Proprietary Fork", referring to a codebase forked from a closed - source, proprietary software for internal or commercial use, but without the transparency and auditability of an open - source fork.

Google's "proprietary fork" this time came at an especially astonishing cost. Public information shows that before Windsurf was acquired by Cognition (the company that developed Devin), Google obtained the license for Windsurf's technology at a price of approximately $2.4 billion. This deal sparked controversy in the Silicon Valley investment circle at that time, and many people believed that such entrepreneurs should be blacklisted. Well - known investor and billionaire Vinod Khosla commented that the Windsurf deal set a "very bad example" for the founders.

Now, with the launch of Antigravity, the outside world has a clearer guess about the purpose of this huge licensing fee: Google most likely forked its own IDE directly from the Windsurf codebase. If this judgment holds true, then Antigravity will become one of the "most expensive per - unit" proprietary forks (PORK) in the technology industry to date.

Is It Obvious "Copying"? 

From the interface to the operation logic, the similarity between Antigravity and Windsurf far exceeds the general sense of "style reference". The visual layout is almost identical, and even the arrangement of UI elements such as the file bar, Git panel, and search area is like a copy - paste. More importantly, the presentation of many functions is also highly consistent, making many users exclaim that it's "a bit too familiar".

Some developers found a direct reference to the private proxy system Cascade of Windsurf in Antigravity. Such internal naming couldn't have appeared by chance.

Some people in the community also posted more comparison pictures, showing that Google doesn't seem to have done much cleaning or refactoring of the underlying code of Windsurf. Many resource names, internal structures, and even system prompt words remain almost unchanged.

The overlap in the user interface is also obvious: almost all core UI blocks can find their corresponding "prototypes" in Windsurf. A developer summarized: "Once you've used Windsurf for a while, you'll feel a sense of familiarity when seeing the Antigravity interface. The details such as the file icons on the side, Git, and search bar are almost identical."

Some engineers who once worked on the Windsurf team now appear in the Antigravity development team, and their responsibilities are even very similar, making the relationship between the two even more intriguing.

Surprisingly, Google didn't try to hide all this. The high similarity between Antigravity and Windsurf has made the developer community start to tease with the classic "copying homework meme":

"Hey, can I copy your homework?" "Sure, but remember to make some changes so it doesn't look like a direct copy." "No problem."

In the open - source world, "fork of a fork" is not something new, but when this model appears in closed - source software, the problem becomes completely different: the core difference lies in transparency. Take Kilo Code as an example. It publicly declares on GitHub that it's a "fork of a fork". Roo Code also follows a similar approach. Roo Code is forked from Cline, and Cline is also an open - source branch. All sources, branches, and evolution paths are clearly written in the public repository.

But in the case of Google's Antigravity, users have to dig deep on their own - from the UI similarity, to code clues, and then to community revelations - to piece together an almost "detective - style" truth: the core of Antigravity is actually Windsurf. Only by reading an analysis like this article can one get a full picture.

 The Founder's "Brand - New" Platform, but Users are Complaining

On one hand, there's the "copying" issue. On the other hand, the founder himself has actively "distanced" Antigravity from Windsurf in public narratives. As the founder of Windsurf, Varun has completely erased the existence of Windsurf from his X profile, as if that entrepreneurial experience never happened.

This contrast has made the outside world even more curious: since the foundation of Antigravity so obviously inherits from Windsurf, what exactly does Varun want Antigravity to be?

In his recent podcast interview, Varun clearly stated that in his eyes, Antigravity is by no means an extension of "enhanced AI IDEs" like Cursor or Windsurf.

The core paradigm of Cursor or Windsurf is still: the IDE is the center, and AI is the assistant; a chat box + an Agent helps you write and modify things in the codebase. The concept of Antigravity is the opposite - in its view, "writing code" only accounts for 20% of a developer's day. The real center should be an Agent system that can drive code, browsers, documents, knowledge bases, and run autonomous tasks on a large scale.

Therefore, Antigravity is designed as an Agent - native development platform. "First, it has a familiar editor that developers can quickly get the hang of. But in addition, it also provides an Agent Manager that allows you to orchestrate a large number of agents that can act on the codebase. At the same time, we've added a brand - new operation interface - the browser."

In terms of interaction, Antigravity also introduces a new basic primitive: Artifacts. The output of each Agent is no longer a vague diff but a verifiable task unit, accompanied by screenshots, recordings, execution steps, and reasoning processes - allowing developers to review the entire execution chain of AI just like reviewing a PR. This is what Varun understands as the "new abstraction layer in the era of AI - written code".

The Agent Manager might be the biggest difference from Cursor/Windsurf. The latter both follow the "single Agent + chat box" model: you give an instruction, it writes a bit, and if it can't complete the task, you have to re - describe it. The whole process is serially driven. In contrast, Antigravity allows developers to start dozens or even hundreds of agents in parallel at once, enabling them to work simultaneously in the same codebase or even multiple projects.

Varun also reviewed the iterative path of the entire industry in the podcast: from the automatic completion with gray - text ghost hints, to the Chat panel, then to the Agent that can modify code on its own, and now we've entered the era of "parallel and autonomous multi - Agent". "Now that we have the brand - new Agent Manager, you can orchestrate dozens or hundreds of agents to work in parallel at once. They can not only operate the IDE but also control the browser simultaneously."

This point is also verified in the official introduction by Google engineer Kevin Hou. He summarized it more straightforwardly: the core of Antigravity consists of "three surfaces" - the Agent Manager, the code editor, and the Chrome browser automated by Antigravity. Most of the developer's work will be completed in these three places. The frequency of using AI in the editor is "far less than that in the Agent Manager" because the real workflow has shifted from "writing code" to "commanding agents".

By setting a balance between security and productivity, these settings determine how much autonomy the agents have.

As for whether the editor will be replaced? Varun's answer is: it won't disappear, but it will definitely "step down". In his vision, in the future, developers will no longer regard the IDE as the only work center - the time spent writing each line of code will significantly decrease. More products will be generated in multiple interfaces such as the Agent Manager, browser, Docs, and Review tools. The real protagonist will be the "development operating system" orchestrated around agents, artifacts, and the browser.

Many Problems 

In July 2025, Google "recruited" Varun Mohan, the CEO of Windsurf, and his team. Just four months later, on November 18th, they released the Antigravity IDE for AI - driven coding. This pace is extremely fast, but it almost certainly means that this product is not perfect. Soon after its launch, user complaints filled social platforms.

Some users found that Antigravity had a "rocky start" in some basic experiences.

A developer complained on X that the team obviously didn't remove the default MCP function of VS Code cleanly, resulting in two configuration entries for adding an MCP Server in the interface - but one of them doesn't work at all, and you can only stare blankly at it. He helplessly added: "Not off to a great start with @antigravity ……" (What a lousy start).