Figma just crossed an inflection point that signals the entire enterprise software category is following. Within seven days, the design platform integrated both OpenAI's Codex and Anthropic's Claude Code—not as competitor options, but as parallel offerings. This isn't product fragmentation. It's a survival strategy disguised as feature parity. When vendor-agnostic AI access becomes table-stakes, the market has fundamentally shifted from proprietary lock-in to platform partnerships.

The timing tells you everything. Figma announced Claude Code support on one Thursday. Seven days later, OpenAI's Codex integration shipped. That's not parallel development cycles overlapping by coincidence. That's a product team executing a predetermined strategy under real-time market pressure.

What Figma is signaling—and what the market is now validating across categories—is that offering users a choice between AI vendors is no longer a luxury feature. It's survival.

Consider the precedent. For years, B2B SaaS treated AI integrations as differentiators. You picked your AI partner, baked it deep into your product, and made that partnership a selling point. Salesforce chose Anthropic. Slack integrated OpenAI. You picked a horse and rode it. But markets don't stay fixed. The moment multiple AI vendors achieve parity on core capabilities—reasoning, coding, summarization—enterprises stop wanting a single horse. They want a paddock.

Figma's sequential move proves this isn't theoretical anymore. The company is betting that design teams want Claude for one type of task (complex refactoring, architectural patterns) and Codex for another (quick inline suggestions, velocity). More importantly, Figma is betting that forcing this choice is now table-stakes competitive behavior, not optional.

Here's what validates that bet: this is happening in parallel across completely different categories. While Figma ships dual AI support, Samsung's S26 rolled out with simultaneous integrations of Gemini, Perplexity, and Bixby—all three. The device maker isn't making a statement about philosophy. It's responding to concrete user demand: "Give me options, or my competitors will."

The category-wide pattern is undeniable. When you see vendor-agnostic integration happening simultaneously in enterprise software (Figma) and consumer hardware (Samsung), you're not watching an experiment. You're watching inflection. Vendor lock-in stopped being feasible as a moat the moment AI became commodity.

But here's where it gets structural. These aren't casual partnerships. Figma's integration cycle with two different AI vendors in seven days suggests the company solved the hard infrastructure problem first—likely a flexible prompt-routing architecture that abstracts away vendor specifics. That same architecture probably applies to the next vendor (Google Vertex, Meta's Llama models, open-source options). Once you've built the pipes for multi-vendor AI, adding vendors becomes relatively trivial. The hard inflection point is building for choice instead of commitment.

What changes operationally is subtle but massive. Design teams stop evaluating AI features as "Does this tool use Claude or GPT?" and start asking "Can I switch between models based on the task?" Figma's support team stops explaining why they chose one vendor and starts explaining how users can configure their preference. Sales conversations shift from feature-parity arguments ("Our AI is better") to flexibility arguments ("Our users pick their own AI").

The market pressure becomes instant and reciprocal. If Figma offers multi-vendor choice and a competitor doesn't, the competitor becomes deficient—not on AI quality, but on user autonomy. That forces every other enterprise software vendor into the same decision: build multi-vendor support or concede an advantage. The cycle moves fast because once one category leader adopts it, staying single-vendor becomes a competitive liability.

Timing matters differently for different players. For enterprise buyers, this 7-day integration window proves vendors can move fast when market pressure demands it. Translation: the 18-month "we need time to integrate" argument is now negotiable. For builders evaluating whether to commit to a single AI partner for their product, Figma's playbook offers a clear answer: build the abstraction layer first, add vendors second. For investors watching AI-enabled software companies, the question shifts from "Did they integrate the best AI?" to "Did they build for multiple AIs?" That's a structural advantage that doesn't fade as new models emerge.

The next threshold to watch is speed and depth of adoption across categories. Enterprise software (CRM, analytics, collaboration tools) should follow within 60 days. If SaaS broadly hasn't shifted to multi-vendor support by Q2 2026, Figma gains a lasting competitive moat—not on AI quality, but on architectural flexibility that matters long after model performance differences flatten.

Figma's decision to ship dual AI vendor support within seven days signals a structural shift in how enterprise software approaches AI partnerships. Vendor lock-in is no longer a defensible strategy when multiple vendors achieve parity on core capabilities. For enterprise decision-makers, this means you can now demand multi-vendor flexibility from any AI-enabled tool—and vendors will comply because not doing so becomes competitively untenable. For builders, the inflection point has arrived: architect for choice from the start, not as an afterthought. For investors, watch which categories adopt multi-vendor support fastest over the next 60 days. The speed of adoption determines whether this is a temporary competitive move or a permanent category reset.