A Reddit post warned Cursor IDE users about a misleading error message claiming their account was locked due to multiple logins. The message, appearing for some users even when they were only logged in on one device, falsely stated that their account was disabled and prompted them to contact support. This erroneous "lockout policy" led to confusion and user cancellations, as people believed they were genuinely blocked from using the IDE. The Cursor team acknowledged the issue, clarifying that no such lockout policy exists and attributing the problem to a bug. They assured users that their accounts were safe and worked to resolve the misleading error.
A Reddit post titled "PSA: Cursor now restricts logins to a single device/browser" in the subreddit r/cursor caused a stir amongst users of the Cursor integrated development environment (IDE). The original poster (OP) detailed their experience of being unexpectedly logged out of their Cursor IDE session and subsequently being unable to log back in. The OP meticulously described the error message received, indicating that only one active login session was permitted per account and that their account was already logged in elsewhere. This led the OP to believe that Cursor had implemented a new, unannounced single-device login policy, effectively locking users out of their accounts if they attempted to access the IDE from multiple locations or browsers. The perceived imposition of this restrictive login policy was met with frustration by the OP, who expressed concern about the impact on their workflow and the lack of prior communication regarding such a significant change. The OP ultimately resorted to cancelling their Cursor subscription due to this perceived limitation, believing it rendered the IDE unusable for their multi-device workflow. The title of the post and the OP's initial description strongly implied that this single-device login restriction was a deliberate, newly enforced feature of the Cursor IDE. The post served as a public service announcement (PSA) to warn other users of this potentially disruptive change in access policy.
Summary of Comments ( 501 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43683012
HN commenters were largely critical of Cursor's handling of the situation. Several pointed out the poor communication, with the "single device" restriction not being clearly conveyed and the error message misleadingly suggesting a lockout due to suspicious activity. Some saw this as a classic example of premature optimization, arguing that preventing multiple logins offered minimal benefit while alienating users. Others speculated about the technical reasons behind the restriction, suggesting it might be related to the complexity of maintaining shared state in Cursor's collaborative features. The overall sentiment was that this incident damaged Cursor's reputation and highlighted a lack of user empathy in their decision-making process.
The Hacker News comments section for the submission titled "Cursor IDE support hallucinates lockout policy, causes user cancellations" discusses the situation where Cursor IDE's support incorrectly claimed a single-login policy was in effect, leading to user confusion and cancellations.
Several commenters express skepticism about the veracity of the Reddit post that sparked the discussion. They question whether the support agent truly misunderstood the situation, suggesting alternative explanations such as the user potentially having multiple accounts or encountering a temporary bug. One commenter points out the unprofessional nature of the support interaction, highlighting the lack of a clear explanation from Cursor and the dismissive tone used with the user.
A significant thread emerges around the business model of Cursor IDE and whether its reliance on OpenAI's APIs makes it vulnerable to high operational costs. Commenters debate the sustainability of building a business solely on top of another company's API, with some arguing that the high costs of these APIs could lead to aggressive pricing strategies or even sudden changes that impact dependent businesses like Cursor. This discussion touches on the broader trend of AI-powered tools and the challenges of managing costs while providing a valuable service.
Some commenters draw parallels to other coding assistance tools, discussing the competitive landscape and how Cursor's features and pricing compare to alternatives like GitHub Copilot. The issue of pricing is a recurring theme, with some users questioning the value proposition of Cursor given the availability of other, potentially more affordable options.
Another line of discussion focuses on the technical aspects of Cursor and its usage of OpenAI's APIs. Commenters speculate on the potential reasons for the login issue, including possibilities like IP address conflicts, session management problems, or even misinterpretations of usage data. This technical discussion adds another layer to the conversation, moving beyond the immediate customer service issue and delving into the potential underlying technical challenges faced by Cursor.
Finally, some comments express general frustration with the current state of AI-powered coding tools, citing issues like inaccuracies, hallucinations, and the potential for over-reliance on these tools. This broader sentiment reflects some of the ongoing concerns about the implications of AI in software development. Overall, the comments section presents a multifaceted discussion about the incident, covering customer support, business models, technical challenges, and the broader impact of AI in the coding landscape.