6 ms·
> They're likely over $80b ARR by now. They'll be at $800b ARR next year at the same rate. And they will be 800 trilion ARR in a couple of years, following tha
by surgical_fire 9d ago
> They're likely over $80b ARR by now. They'll be at $800b ARR next year at the same rate.
And they will be 800 trilion ARR in a couple of years, following that same rate! 8 quadrillion by 2029!
> When you are growing so fast, you don't need to make a net profit. You just need to make sure your unit economics are good - which it seems like they are given reports that their gross margins are at 60-70%.
If their margins were anywhere near this good, they wouldn't need to raise so much money so often.
If you create a machine that turns 1 dollar into 3 dollars, you don't dillute your ownership of the machine, you use your fabulous profits to expand your machine's capabilities.
- aurareturn 9d agoIf their margins were anywhere near this good, they wouldn't need to raise so much money so often. Why not? They are reinvesting into growth. There isn't a clear winner yet and Anthropic wants to make sure it is one of them. Taking a profit now while letting OpenAI take your marketshare and train better models is not very smart.
- surgical_fire 9d agoOr they bleed money like crazy, and their margins are pretty awful. Which is the correct answer. Your $200 subscription is a major net loss for them. The vast majority that pays for that would cancel in a heartbeat the moment they had to pay API prices. Which may or may not be profitable, I am not entirely sure. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is.
- aurareturn 9d agoAre we still calculated $200 subscription token spend based on their highly inflated API token cost and then concluding that they must be losing money on all $200 subscriptions?
- surgical_fire 9d agoAre their API token costs highly inflated? I see no evidence of that.
- vanuatu 9d agoWhy are we using consumer prices when the vast majority of their revenue is from enterprise api usage?
- surgical_fire 9d agoWihout insight on how much enterprise is paying, it is impossible to draw any conclusions. Unless you have any access to their contracts and are willing to share evidence? I find that highly unlikely. People here throw around crazy numbers - the dude above was claiming they have some insane good margins, numberd that he took out of his ass. The only evidence I have is that they are incredibly unprofitable, and they keep raising insane amounts of capital like crazy. There was a leak sometime ago that they were EBITDA positive during a quarter where they didn't pay for part of their compute. And EBITDA is a cute metric to use when depreciation is actually very important to them, as a model from a year or so ago is nearly worthless.
- vanuatu 9d agoserving models is very profitable (70%+) but the issue is you need to invest in training the next iteration. but so far all of anthropics models have been profitable fully loaded the vast majority of the labs revenue is from enterprise api usage (theres public sources from the information and ramp). but the risk there is customer concentration, where most of the revenue comes from other tech companies and a chunk of it is from foreign labs distilling so i am drawing a conclusion that the labs' business model is good, maybe not as great as boosters think it is. if they make real progress on the biosciences like drug discovery that could turn it into an amazing business
- surgical_fire 9d ago> serving models is very profitable (70%+) All your argument hangs on this. I see no evidence of this being true.
- vanuatu 9d ago