You chose Bun for its speed, but you might be getting more than you bargained for. What happens when your runtime, your CLI, and your LLM are all owned by the same company?
This is the new reality of the AI-powered stack. The lines are blurring between the tools we use to build our applications and the AI services we consume. And this "collapsing stack" is creating a new and dangerous form of vendor lock-in.
When a single company controls your runtime, they can start to influence your choice of AI provider. They can offer "seamless integrations" that are anything but seamless to disentangle. They can bundle services in a way that makes it impossible to switch one component without switching them all.
Think about it:
- What if your runtime starts making metered calls to the vendor's AI service by default?
- What if your CLI tool for deploying your application also "helpfully" provisions the vendor's AI services?
- What if the terms of service for your runtime are updated to include clauses about your usage of their AI services?
This isn't just a hypothetical scenario. We're already seeing the first signs of this with Bun's rewrite in Rust by the same company that's behind the Claude models.
The only way to protect yourself is to maintain control over your stack. You need to use tools that are open, interoperable, and vendor-agnostic.
This is especially true for monitoring. You can't rely on your vendor's dashboard to give you an unbiased view of your costs. You need an independent tool that can monitor your usage across all your providers.
That's why we built LLMeter (https://llmeter.org). It's an open-source, self-hosted tool that gives you a single pane of glass for all your LLM costs. It's vendor-agnostic by design.
Don't let the collapsing stack lock you in. Choose your tools wisely, and maintain control of your own destiny.
Top comments (0)