How is Anthropic, OpenAI and xAi going to compete against the likes of Google that can spend $200 billion a year? It’s an impossible war and all these investors are throwing their money into a bottomless insatiable pit of money.
Until the funding stops for one reason or another and then everyone loses all their money at once like a star that collapses into a black hole singularity in a femtosecond.
Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable.
It’s the new kids in the block that will make the difference.
You know those lists on twitter about how many companies US has in top 10 and are presented as a win? Those are actually lists of capital concentrations blocking innovation. It looks like US is winning but for some reason life is better in EU and innovation is faster in China.
It’s companies like OpenAI Anthropic that will move US ahead. Even if some core innovation or and capital comes from the establishment.
Sometimes I worry about the incentives for innovation in the US.
Step 1, find something to innovate on, sell the promise of it to investors.
Step 2, build a prototype or worst case, build it for real and start generating income from your truly innovate and unique product.
Step 3, get acquired by a large company and then shut down because your product competed with theirs.
End result, general public possibly benefited from your innovation, but in the long run, it was temporary.
Maybe the incentives would be better if it were harder for large companies to acquire small ones? If the path to riches where driven primarily by delivering value to customers. Would love to hear other's opinions on this.
>It looks like US is winning but for some reason life is better in EU and innovation is faster in China
As measured by prosperity life in the US is better; the poorest US state has a higher GDP per capita than most western European countries. Americans have bigger houses, more food, bigger cars, bigger salaries, and access to better medical care and schools if they've got an okay job. Most Europeans are lucky to make $40k/year post-tax. And America is still winning on innovation because its AI models are ahead of China's both in benchmarks and in user preferences. How many people do you know professionally who use a Chinese model and agent framework instead of e.g. Claude Code or OpenAI Codex?
It's telling that the measure of quality of life you use in this comment is entirely materialistic in nature. I also challenge the idea that US provides 'access to better medical care', as it is pretty well documented that Americans spend more for lower quality care compared to similar developed countries.
I believe this cultural divide is a big reason America won't make it back to the top - insatiable desire for wealth and a lack of values-based principals. Ironically US companies are the first to tout their 'values' in the workplace.
I gotta say, I found this one especially funny as I currently don't have a car and that's actually my biggest luxury: being able to go around without one and no spending time in commute.
>As measured by prosperity life in the US is better; the poorest US state has a higher GDP per capita than most western European countries.
GDP per capita/prosperity is a poor proxy for quality of life. The US is lagging most of the developed world in most quality of life metrics, even as reported by US news outlets, which don't rank the US in even the top 20: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-...
>Americans have bigger houses, more food, bigger cars,
The size of one's house or car is at best weakly-correlated with quality of life. I would rather not own a car at all and be able to walk everywhere, rather than spend hours of my life commuting in a gigantic SUV.
>bigger salaries, and access to better medical care and schools if they've got an okay job.
The US ranks the lowest in the developed world for life expectancy, and among the highest in obesity globally (obesity being a major determinant of health). The US remains the only developed country where an unlucky dice roll (e.g. genetic-linked cancer) will bankrupt you and destroy the livelihoods of your children.
The most efficient way Google could spend that money is probably to buy a company and not poke at it too much. I have no confidence that large rich companies can actually innovate beyond buying small innovators or spawning business units and not poking at them much.
well, it's basically existential, so the incentive is there to not only get it very right but also to limit the delta with how right anyone else gets it. The same can't really be said of the long tail of products Google have done.
Look to GCP as an example. It had to be done, with similar competitive dynamics, it was done very well.
> well, it's basically existential, so the incentive is there to not only get it very right but also to limit the delta with how right anyone else gets it. The same can't really be said of the long tail of products Google have done.
I've yet to see anything that threatens Google's ad monopoly.
Depend on the definition of the "product". For example some banal cloud storage in which everyone competes. And it's an "old" product, despite being invisibly improved behind the scenes, just like at any other provider. Google has pretty competitive storage AND they are fully abusing Android integration for AND they have pretty good bundling of that storage with other products, including, you've guessed it - LLM Gemini. So say a person is not a professional user of LLMs like a developer burning tokens in a dozen accounts simultaneously. A person has a phone and eventually memory runs out, so he buys a one click Google storage for 4 bucks. And suddenly he has Gemini Pro included too. So why pay 20 bucks to Anthropic, when Google costs 1/5 of that AND has other stuff bundled too?
So maybe Google is lagging on truly new products (btw, does Gemini itself with its TPUs count as a new product? I'd say yes), but "old" products are entrenched enough to carry them and compete.
They target those ads by ingesting as many signals as possible from as many input devices & sensors as they can possibly convince people to use. They make a lot of money from advertising b/c they have managed to convince the most number of people to give them as many behavioral signals as possible & they will continue to do so. They kill products only when the signal is not valuable enough to improve their advertising business but that's clearly not the case w/ AI.
Because Google has the money to build 10 different versions/iterations of Gemini and can essentially force one to work. They have most people's data and most people use them for mail/search/browser/maps as well.
In my opinion though this is a race to the bottom rather than a winner takes all situation so I don't think anyone is coming out ahead once the dust settles.
Does it matter? Microsoft won by default with Teams because it actually turns out no one cares about chat or even has a choice in it: employees use whatever the company picks.
The tech behind wave eventually made its way into Google docs though and pioneered collaborative document editing, so wasn't a complete failure even though the product itself was killed.
No comment on Google+, Google has a storied history of failure on any kind of social media/chat type products.
Where Google wins is just simply having enough money to outlive anyone else. As the saying goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" In this case, Google is the market and they can just keep throwing money at the wall until OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. go under.
The conclusion Google is engaged in consumer capitalism is wild.
They're engaged in computing research and merely engage in consumer capitalism as a consequence of political and social constraints.
Products are a means to an end not the goal.
OpenAI and Anthropic are product companies and are more likely to fail like most product companies do as they will lack broad and wide depth.
Google has experience in design, implementation, and 24/7 ops with every type of SaaS there is. They can bin LLMs tomorrow and still make bank. Same cannot be said for OAI or Anthropic.
I'm trying paid tier Gemini and it doesn't allow to keep have personal chat history when you disable training on your data, on reload of the page your chat is gone. Even free tier of ChatGPT allows disabling training on your data while allowing to keep such basic functionality.
Some technical advancements are not worth it if you do not respect your users.
Google is evil in passive way, like sprawling bureaucracy making you life slowly worse and worse but also doing some stuff to at least some fraction of population. OpenAI and Sam are determined and energetic evil, laser focused on making whole human population jobless and homeless in shortest way possible and not producing anything else of value, no other products. I'd rather prefer the former evil out of the two.
Another basic feature that’s missing is sharing a Gemini chat as a link anyone can view.
OpenAI figured this out: it’s awesome marketing when people send each other links to the app with a convenient text box to continue the conversation. It’s viral.
Google meanwhile set this up so that “anyone with the link can view” is actually “anyone with the link and a Google account”.
That’s grade A failure of marketing.
The PM in charge of that decision ought to be walked off a plank.
Well there's a good reason that OpenAI partnered up with Microsoft. The calculation is that the established big techs - Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta are all going to be significantly impacted by AI so it's not unreasonable to look at Anthropic at 10% of their market cap as a reasonable value. Would it be worth Apple to bring Anthropic in house? They failed to deliver AI themselves, they know the risks of being dependent on Google. If AI goes far enough it may totally remove Apple's differentiation.
Some of the Big Techs are building their own in house stuff (Meta, Google), but it wouldn't be crazy to see acquisitions by the others, especially if the market cools slightly. And then there's the possibility that these companies mature their revenue streams enough to start actually really throwing off money and paying off the investment.
> they know the risks of being dependent on Google
I wouldn't argue it's that risky. Look at their past entanglements:
1. Google Default Search Bribe - brings in $20B a year for literally doing nothing
2. Google Maps: Google let them build their own custom app using Google's backend, and it worked fine all the way up until Apple chose to exit that arrangement
actually I can't think of any others, but is there an example of Apple getting burned by Google?
Slight counter point - claude code is basically the only developer tool that ever been happy to pay money for. Getting the entire software industry to give you $200/mo/person is quite the market.
Basically "we have youtube subscribers" is the only thing that isn't all about AI, but even that i'm sure they're trying to figure out how to shoehorn AI into that product
Just because something is in do-or-die situation doesn't mean that they have some kind of magical advantage over fat cat. Being in that situation means there is very real possibility of doing "die" part and we have lots of examples of them doing so.
I wonder how good it is for companies to be allowed to grow so big and still be private? Would it makes sense to require any company with more than a billion dollar valuation to be subject to all the same SEC requirements that public companies are? Could companies be blocked from raising money once the reach a crazy valuation like $1 billion?
That doesn’t make sense at all. The raison d’être of SEC is to protect regular mom-and-pop investors. A private company just doesn’t allow anyone to invest in them. Why should SEC rules apply? On what legal basis can you force a private company to divulge its financial details? Would you be happy if you, as an individual, have to divulge your account statements if your own net wealth reaches one million?
yeah it's a slippery slope forcing companies to go public at X valuation. who decides that? what number makes sense? etc. but i do think we need to somehow fix massively overpriced companies going public and dumping on retail
> "It has been less than three years since Anthropic earned its first dollar in revenue. Today, our run-rate revenue is $14 billion, with this figure growing over 10x annually in each of those past three years."
Wild although not entirely surprising. Congrats, Anthropic.
Pay attention to the outflow of tech investment in the stock market. That money is going to move into OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs. The valuations will be as big you are thinking because the market believes these companies will represent an entire basket of startups.
I really wonder is there even enough dump money from them to sell the stock they hold. Not to mention even raising any new capital... Is there really enough bag holders that will run after these stock with large enough piles of money?
Could you be more specific? Because NVDA has a consistent 20 year growth of something like 400x and +30%/yr, so I don't think the bitter lessons are there.
I would hold off congratulating them until they’re actually in the black. They are still burning billions a year lol the revenue is impressive but their expenses are still solidly north of it.
OpenAI has "open" in their name but is closed off to public access and input
Google used to have a motto "don't be evil"
Who enforces the definition of language? Who demands compliance?
Soon as we go down the path of policing and insistence on one true dogma, we veer into religious holy war type behavior.
Obsession with semantics of syntax is a sort of theism even if the syntax and semantics do not refer to the commonly accepted tropes of a specific religion.
In this case, it has to do with how they're classified under Delaware law as a corporate entity.
I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV, damn you Odenkirk) so I can't tell you what that means as far as case law for companies getting punished for behaving badly, but in this case, there is supposedly some sort of legal backing for the classification.
They've been very clear about their mission, they're doing more than anyone else when it comes to it, and if you've ever interviewed with them you'd know how critical it is to them.
But I guess it's easier to make a glib comment than look these things up.
Anthropic has one of the best moats of any business that's been created in the last 50 years.
Numerous companies have tried and failed competing with SoTA foundational models. If Anthropic had no moat, Apple and Meta wouldn't be paying them billions for coding asistance.
Meta, Amazon, Apple, and Nvidia would all have SoTA competitors to Claude. They all tried and have not produced a competitor.
Instead you have three companies that stand alone making billions from foundational models.
Two years ago, I considered investing in Anthropic when they had a valuation of around $18B and messed up by chickening out (it was available on some of the private investor platforms). Up 20x since then ...
It was always obvious that Anthropic's focus on business/API usage had potential to scale faster than OpenAI's focus on ChatGPT, but the real kicker has been Claude Code (released a year ago).
It'd be interesting to know how Anthropic's revenue splits between Claude Code, or coding in general, other API usage, and chat (which I assume is small).
Hiive and Forge Global are the ones I know of. You must be an "accredited investor" which means nothing at all except that you have a million dollars or make $200k/yr.
Like you can buy shares of Anthropic as long as you prove you make over 200K? That easy? Shouldn't they approve of the purchase? Sorry, noob in this space!
The secondary platform verifies you and then you indicate interest. If there’s a seller you may get to buy. Company may ROFR. Priority goes to bigger buyers.
A few years back, well ok maybe almost ten now, but regardless- a recruiter reached out to me about a role at a "series G" company like it was a selling point, and I was just kinda like ok maybe thats signaling its relatively stable and can raise money, but at the same time, that's a lot of rounds to have preferences ensure unprivileged shareholders get nothing, and also to have most of the hockey stick growth already tapped out.
This was in the middle of the boom when companies were fighting over talent, so I found it odd.
Goldman Sachs recently stoked fear about software stocks due to claimed AI competition.
What if their strategy is this: slowly drive down software stocks, keep talking about AI, buy the downward market. Then cash in on the IPOs of OpenAI and Anthropic.
Then let OpenAI and Anthropic implode. Goldman Sachs had no problems underwriting webvan at the end of 1999, which then imploded in 2000.
Anyway, I just valued my dog at $1 billion post-money. You can buy it at pets.com.
Matt Levine has put this forward in his newsletter - if you're moderately influential you can go on TV and tell people that "X industry will be dead in 10 years" because of AI and then profit from the inevitable stock dip.
Because we live in the worst possible timeline the end result for AI companies does seem to be "too big to fail", where these massive investments will get foisted on working class people via a bailout or an IPO and index inclusion.
You're attributing way too much intent to what is the viewpoint of some random analyst at Goldman Sachs (who doesn't even control any purse strings). A year ago there was another big hullabaloo when a GS team wrote a long post about how AI companies would never make enough revenue.
Funny I consider this valuation modest considering what the max extent of the investment thesis is here.
SaaS and legal market caps have already contracted a multiple of the combined OpenAI + Anthropic valuations just based on the _threat_ of what they may be able to accomplish.
They'll have the data + knowledge edge over open alternatives and be able to implement + deploy (see the story about Anthropic employees being at GS for 6 months already[0])
These companies are spending billions on custom datasets for a gazillion of valuable tasks and are clamping down on exfil for distillation. It's not guaranteed open source models will continue to keep pace.
China might purchase the data and train their models just to make the AI bubble pop. A few billions to throw a wrench in your competing superpower economy might be totally worth it
Then they will fall back on the selling their other real competitive products - hardware accelerators, phones and PCs, cloud storage and cloud compute, enterprise software, databases, operating systems, office and media suits... Oh wait...
I am struggling with this because I have an Anthropic offer vs another equivalent offer that is all cash.
But project out forwards.
- What happens when Google builds a similar model? Or even Meta, as far behind as they are? They have more than Anthropic in cash flow to pour into these models.
- What happens when OSS is "enough" for most cases? Why would anyone pay 60% margins on inference?
What is Anthropic's moat? The UX is nice, but it can be copied. And other companies will have similarly intelligent models eventually. Margins will then be a race to the bottom, and the real winners will be GPU infra.
I've been in this situation before. Anthropic has a stupid business model but the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. If you get in there you will be aligned with people who structurally do not lose.
Big picture, sure. We can talk about the millions that corporations will make and who's going to do what. But you're a person. $1 million in options is probably meaningful for you. Companies aren't IPOing, but the secret is that they're still paying employees cash for their options. SpaceX employees have had what's called a tender, which means they get to sell some of their hypothetical SpaceX options for cold hard cash in the bank that you can use to pay your mortgage. There's zero guarantee that Anthropic will do such a thing before the bubble bursts, but if they do, and you're there, who cares about a software company moat when you have enough money to buy a castle in Napa and pay to have a real actual moat with water in it and crocodiles, if that's what you want.
Others are made of different stuff, and are going to go right back to work, even though they could go off to a beach for the rest of forever somewhere.
I haven't used it to replace workers though, only to replace Google search. My company is pushing copilot but it's only $16/user/mo. Hardly lucrative and no moat.
Anthropic's marketing somehow punches hard. Not sure why, but the stuff they do sticks. Not because the products are great, but because the way they communicate about it gives people the right feeling. They do have legitimately the best coding model now for most tasks, and for narrative prose, but the marketing stuck and people stan'd them even when they were trailing.
It's Web 2.0 all over again. No moat, winner-take-all (economies-of-scale/network-effect). Just have to out-spend everyone else, and then figure out whether it was worth it all after you win.
Having a cutting edge model that requires tens of billions of dollars to train + a massive concentration of talent and experience + brand + one of, if not the best, coding experiences in Claude Code
At least from the software engineer pleb perspective, their moat is that their tools seem to work well more often than not. I wasn't comfortable with the idea of using GitHub CoPilot as our GenAI solution at work, and apparently that was a widespread feeling, because we switched to Claude Code, and it's been a relatively smooth transition from manual coding to GenAI agentic loops.
How is Anthropic, OpenAI and xAi going to compete against the likes of Google that can spend $200 billion a year? It’s an impossible war and all these investors are throwing their money into a bottomless insatiable pit of money.
Until the funding stops for one reason or another and then everyone loses all their money at once like a star that collapses into a black hole singularity in a femtosecond.
Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable.
It’s the new kids in the block that will make the difference.
You know those lists on twitter about how many companies US has in top 10 and are presented as a win? Those are actually lists of capital concentrations blocking innovation. It looks like US is winning but for some reason life is better in EU and innovation is faster in China.
It’s companies like OpenAI Anthropic that will move US ahead. Even if some core innovation or and capital comes from the establishment.
Sometimes I worry about the incentives for innovation in the US.
Step 1, find something to innovate on, sell the promise of it to investors. Step 2, build a prototype or worst case, build it for real and start generating income from your truly innovate and unique product. Step 3, get acquired by a large company and then shut down because your product competed with theirs.
End result, general public possibly benefited from your innovation, but in the long run, it was temporary.
Maybe the incentives would be better if it were harder for large companies to acquire small ones? If the path to riches where driven primarily by delivering value to customers. Would love to hear other's opinions on this.
Well in China its
"Get bankrolled by the state at the state's discretion until they get what they want, even if they need to burn $1B to get $1M of value"
and in Europe it's
"Just buy it from the US or China".
> What are the outcomes though?
NVIDIA, and contractors who build data centers, and manufacturers who supply them, will all get rich.
>It looks like US is winning but for some reason life is better in EU and innovation is faster in China
As measured by prosperity life in the US is better; the poorest US state has a higher GDP per capita than most western European countries. Americans have bigger houses, more food, bigger cars, bigger salaries, and access to better medical care and schools if they've got an okay job. Most Europeans are lucky to make $40k/year post-tax. And America is still winning on innovation because its AI models are ahead of China's both in benchmarks and in user preferences. How many people do you know professionally who use a Chinese model and agent framework instead of e.g. Claude Code or OpenAI Codex?
It's telling that the measure of quality of life you use in this comment is entirely materialistic in nature. I also challenge the idea that US provides 'access to better medical care', as it is pretty well documented that Americans spend more for lower quality care compared to similar developed countries.
I believe this cultural divide is a big reason America won't make it back to the top - insatiable desire for wealth and a lack of values-based principals. Ironically US companies are the first to tout their 'values' in the workplace.
> bigger cars
I gotta say, I found this one especially funny as I currently don't have a car and that's actually my biggest luxury: being able to go around without one and no spending time in commute.
To your last point, the answer is probably much different in China
>As measured by prosperity life in the US is better; the poorest US state has a higher GDP per capita than most western European countries.
GDP per capita/prosperity is a poor proxy for quality of life. The US is lagging most of the developed world in most quality of life metrics, even as reported by US news outlets, which don't rank the US in even the top 20: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-...
>Americans have bigger houses, more food, bigger cars,
The size of one's house or car is at best weakly-correlated with quality of life. I would rather not own a car at all and be able to walk everywhere, rather than spend hours of my life commuting in a gigantic SUV.
>bigger salaries, and access to better medical care and schools if they've got an okay job.
The US ranks the lowest in the developed world for life expectancy, and among the highest in obesity globally (obesity being a major determinant of health). The US remains the only developed country where an unlucky dice roll (e.g. genetic-linked cancer) will bankrupt you and destroy the livelihoods of your children.
This is not the flex you think it is.
The most efficient way Google could spend that money is probably to buy a company and not poke at it too much. I have no confidence that large rich companies can actually innovate beyond buying small innovators or spawning business units and not poking at them much.
Google fucks up 90% of their products, why do you think Gemini is in the 10%?
well, it's basically existential, so the incentive is there to not only get it very right but also to limit the delta with how right anyone else gets it. The same can't really be said of the long tail of products Google have done.
Look to GCP as an example. It had to be done, with similar competitive dynamics, it was done very well.
Look to Android as another.
> well, it's basically existential, so the incentive is there to not only get it very right but also to limit the delta with how right anyone else gets it. The same can't really be said of the long tail of products Google have done.
I've yet to see anything that threatens Google's ad monopoly.
Google has barely released a successful product in 20 years.
Depend on the definition of the "product". For example some banal cloud storage in which everyone competes. And it's an "old" product, despite being invisibly improved behind the scenes, just like at any other provider. Google has pretty competitive storage AND they are fully abusing Android integration for AND they have pretty good bundling of that storage with other products, including, you've guessed it - LLM Gemini. So say a person is not a professional user of LLMs like a developer burning tokens in a dozen accounts simultaneously. A person has a phone and eventually memory runs out, so he buys a one click Google storage for 4 bucks. And suddenly he has Gemini Pro included too. So why pay 20 bucks to Anthropic, when Google costs 1/5 of that AND has other stuff bundled too?
So maybe Google is lagging on truly new products (btw, does Gemini itself with its TPUs count as a new product? I'd say yes), but "old" products are entrenched enough to carry them and compete.
I thought that the likes of Android, Google Docs, Google Translate, etc. were fairly successful. Chrome and ChromeOS also seem fairly popular too.
A lot of those are getting pretty close to 20 years ago.
This year:
chromeos is 17
android is 18
chrome is 18
google docs is 20
google translate is 20
Persistence. Google has a lot more endurance then OpenAI does in this game.
The current AI market is going to destroy anyone who's specialized into it compared to having alternative revenue streams to subsidize it.
Agree. Look at how miserably MSFT has failed at integrating AI tastefully in their business.
Google makes money selling ads. Nothing else matters.
They target those ads by ingesting as many signals as possible from as many input devices & sensors as they can possibly convince people to use. They make a lot of money from advertising b/c they have managed to convince the most number of people to give them as many behavioral signals as possible & they will continue to do so. They kill products only when the signal is not valuable enough to improve their advertising business but that's clearly not the case w/ AI.
Because Google has the money to build 10 different versions/iterations of Gemini and can essentially force one to work. They have most people's data and most people use them for mail/search/browser/maps as well.
In my opinion though this is a race to the bottom rather than a winner takes all situation so I don't think anyone is coming out ahead once the dust settles.
Google built ten different chat products, how did that go?
Does it matter? Microsoft won by default with Teams because it actually turns out no one cares about chat or even has a choice in it: employees use whatever the company picks.
This was the same argument made for Google Wave and Google+ and both completely tanked
The tech behind wave eventually made its way into Google docs though and pioneered collaborative document editing, so wasn't a complete failure even though the product itself was killed.
No comment on Google+, Google has a storied history of failure on any kind of social media/chat type products.
Where Google wins is just simply having enough money to outlive anyone else. As the saying goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" In this case, Google is the market and they can just keep throwing money at the wall until OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. go under.
Google Docs has no features remotely like what Google Wave was.
And there was collaborative editing long before Google Wave.
Social media has strong network effects that keeps competitors at bay. What network effects are OpenAI/Anthropic/etc accumulating?
Yes, but Gemini is actually good and so are their APIs.
Because the product quality doesn't matter if the competition isn't making any money.
google the only ai which invests mixing llm ai with real ai, and it seems work well.
race to the bottom. google in house cheaper inference hardware. anthropic buys it.
The conclusion Google is engaged in consumer capitalism is wild.
They're engaged in computing research and merely engage in consumer capitalism as a consequence of political and social constraints.
Products are a means to an end not the goal.
OpenAI and Anthropic are product companies and are more likely to fail like most product companies do as they will lack broad and wide depth.
Google has experience in design, implementation, and 24/7 ops with every type of SaaS there is. They can bin LLMs tomorrow and still make bank. Same cannot be said for OAI or Anthropic.
Do they though?
Google does things I hate with their products. But the money printing machine keeps going whrrr faster and faster.
I'm trying paid tier Gemini and it doesn't allow to keep have personal chat history when you disable training on your data, on reload of the page your chat is gone. Even free tier of ChatGPT allows disabling training on your data while allowing to keep such basic functionality.
Some technical advancements are not worth it if you do not respect your users.
Yeah I’m never using a Google product. The sole purpose of their company is to be evil. At least other companies are indifferent.
Google is evil in passive way, like sprawling bureaucracy making you life slowly worse and worse but also doing some stuff to at least some fraction of population. OpenAI and Sam are determined and energetic evil, laser focused on making whole human population jobless and homeless in shortest way possible and not producing anything else of value, no other products. I'd rather prefer the former evil out of the two.
How does their top tier subscription compare in usage limits to the $200/mo Claude usage limits?
Another basic feature that’s missing is sharing a Gemini chat as a link anyone can view.
OpenAI figured this out: it’s awesome marketing when people send each other links to the app with a convenient text box to continue the conversation. It’s viral.
Google meanwhile set this up so that “anyone with the link can view” is actually “anyone with the link and a Google account”.
That’s grade A failure of marketing.
The PM in charge of that decision ought to be walked off a plank.
This doesn't sound right. I just opened a shared link in a fresh incognito window and it works fine.
Try sharing from the Google AI Studio Playground.
E.g.: https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%...
The same way that Google+ never overtook Facebook
Well there's a good reason that OpenAI partnered up with Microsoft. The calculation is that the established big techs - Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta are all going to be significantly impacted by AI so it's not unreasonable to look at Anthropic at 10% of their market cap as a reasonable value. Would it be worth Apple to bring Anthropic in house? They failed to deliver AI themselves, they know the risks of being dependent on Google. If AI goes far enough it may totally remove Apple's differentiation.
Some of the Big Techs are building their own in house stuff (Meta, Google), but it wouldn't be crazy to see acquisitions by the others, especially if the market cools slightly. And then there's the possibility that these companies mature their revenue streams enough to start actually really throwing off money and paying off the investment.
> they know the risks of being dependent on Google
I wouldn't argue it's that risky. Look at their past entanglements:
1. Google Default Search Bribe - brings in $20B a year for literally doing nothing
2. Google Maps: Google let them build their own custom app using Google's backend, and it worked fine all the way up until Apple chose to exit that arrangement
actually I can't think of any others, but is there an example of Apple getting burned by Google?
Slight counter point - claude code is basically the only developer tool that ever been happy to pay money for. Getting the entire software industry to give you $200/mo/person is quite the market.
how does any startup beat an incumbent?
Google's only focus isn't on Gemini. Anthropic is do-or-die
Look at Sundar's most recent remarks and tell me Google's isn't only focusing on AI: https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/a...
Basically "we have youtube subscribers" is the only thing that isn't all about AI, but even that i'm sure they're trying to figure out how to shoehorn AI into that product
Also Theranos was do-or-die and we know how it ended.
I fail to see what that has to do with this?
Just because something is in do-or-die situation doesn't mean that they have some kind of magical advantage over fat cat. Being in that situation means there is very real possibility of doing "die" part and we have lots of examples of them doing so.
very different; not a relevant comparison
I’d guess they want to outlast OpenAI and then get bought by Apple or Amazon.
Google has invested in Anthropic. I don't trust that Google will compete on fair grounds with Anthropic on coding. Their common enemy is OpenAI.
Given the amount money that they are spending for vastly subpar products maybe they need to quadruple their capex
I wonder how good it is for companies to be allowed to grow so big and still be private? Would it makes sense to require any company with more than a billion dollar valuation to be subject to all the same SEC requirements that public companies are? Could companies be blocked from raising money once the reach a crazy valuation like $1 billion?
That doesn’t make sense at all. The raison d’être of SEC is to protect regular mom-and-pop investors. A private company just doesn’t allow anyone to invest in them. Why should SEC rules apply? On what legal basis can you force a private company to divulge its financial details? Would you be happy if you, as an individual, have to divulge your account statements if your own net wealth reaches one million?
yeah it's a slippery slope forcing companies to go public at X valuation. who decides that? what number makes sense? etc. but i do think we need to somehow fix massively overpriced companies going public and dumping on retail
It’s a major issue in VC. Main Street doesn’t get access until it’s time to offload. Prevents capital recycling for early stage as well.
> "It has been less than three years since Anthropic earned its first dollar in revenue. Today, our run-rate revenue is $14 billion, with this figure growing over 10x annually in each of those past three years."
Wild although not entirely surprising. Congrats, Anthropic.
Next year 140 billion the following year 1.4 trillion, 14 trillion the year after that?
Better be otherwise it’s a 27+ year wait for breakeven!
27 year PE ratio is a value stock at this point
Pay attention to the outflow of tech investment in the stock market. That money is going to move into OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs. The valuations will be as big you are thinking because the market believes these companies will represent an entire basket of startups.
It Is more likely that people are cashing out very liquid assets (tech stocks) to pay back their loans in Yen as interest rates are rising over there.
Tech stocks with all the hype are second only to crypto in terms of how easy and fast are to sell (hence BTC dropped and now tech stocks IMHO).
Btw, I was too young to fully remember, but wasn't the year before the dot com crash also full of IPOs?
If your thesis was correct, why wouldn't some of those "outflows" go to GOOG or NVDA?
They would. You can see how resilient GOOG has been during this recent draw-down, and how much growth it has had even as AI sells off.
AI sells off… if this is a selloff than I see what everyone is talking about when they are saying we in a bubble :)
And why would anyone participate in their IPOs? They would be crazily overvalued, like Figma or worse.
I really wonder is there even enough dump money from them to sell the stock they hold. Not to mention even raising any new capital... Is there really enough bag holders that will run after these stock with large enough piles of money?
To be fair, Facebook was at the time viewed by many as crazily overvalued.
Might as well long NVDA?
There are many bitter lessons ...
Could you be more specific? Because NVDA has a consistent 20 year growth of something like 400x and +30%/yr, so I don't think the bitter lessons are there.
I would hold off congratulating them until they’re actually in the black. They are still burning billions a year lol the revenue is impressive but their expenses are still solidly north of it.
Don't worry about it: they'll make it up in volume
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXDxNCzUspM
What are the benefits ?
If you give me $1T to spend, I, too, can probably make $14B (this is a metaphor)
Kind of amusing that there is basically no mention of their original mission at all here.
What was their original mission?
My sense is that startup mission statements are ~meaningless. Builders try to build great things that lots of other people will find valuable.
>What was their original mission?
Beat OpenAI. The Founders came from OpenAI so there was obviously some disagreement about the direction there or they simply wanted more control.
Friendly AI
To maximise shareholder value.
Technically speaking, it's to maximize shareholder value while serving the public interest. They're a public benefit corporation.
OpenAI has "open" in their name but is closed off to public access and input
Google used to have a motto "don't be evil"
Who enforces the definition of language? Who demands compliance?
Soon as we go down the path of policing and insistence on one true dogma, we veer into religious holy war type behavior.
Obsession with semantics of syntax is a sort of theism even if the syntax and semantics do not refer to the commonly accepted tropes of a specific religion.
In this case, it has to do with how they're classified under Delaware law as a corporate entity.
I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV, damn you Odenkirk) so I can't tell you what that means as far as case law for companies getting punished for behaving badly, but in this case, there is supposedly some sort of legal backing for the classification.
They've been very clear about their mission, they're doing more than anyone else when it comes to it, and if you've ever interviewed with them you'd know how critical it is to them.
But I guess it's easier to make a glib comment than look these things up.
It's a benefit corp
Anthropic has one of the best moats of any business that's been created in the last 50 years.
Numerous companies have tried and failed competing with SoTA foundational models. If Anthropic had no moat, Apple and Meta wouldn't be paying them billions for coding asistance.
Meta, Amazon, Apple, and Nvidia would all have SoTA competitors to Claude. They all tried and have not produced a competitor.
Instead you have three companies that stand alone making billions from foundational models.
$14B revenue run rate is the interesting number here.
Yeah, up from $1B a year ago.
Two years ago, I considered investing in Anthropic when they had a valuation of around $18B and messed up by chickening out (it was available on some of the private investor platforms). Up 20x since then ...
It was always obvious that Anthropic's focus on business/API usage had potential to scale faster than OpenAI's focus on ChatGPT, but the real kicker has been Claude Code (released a year ago).
It'd be interesting to know how Anthropic's revenue splits between Claude Code, or coding in general, other API usage, and chat (which I assume is small).
what are the private investor platform you mentioned ? and what are the requirements to join in?
Hiive and Forge Global are the ones I know of. You must be an "accredited investor" which means nothing at all except that you have a million dollars or make $200k/yr.
Like you can buy shares of Anthropic as long as you prove you make over 200K? That easy? Shouldn't they approve of the purchase? Sorry, noob in this space!
The secondary platform verifies you and then you indicate interest. If there’s a seller you may get to buy. Company may ROFR. Priority goes to bigger buyers.
EquityBee got me investors to exercise my Brex options, in exchange for giving up some small beta
Soon we will lack letters for funding rounds!
G is tame. Wait until you hear of Databricks’ Series K…
https://www.thesaasnews.com/news/databricks-raises-1b-series...
A few years back, well ok maybe almost ten now, but regardless- a recruiter reached out to me about a role at a "series G" company like it was a selling point, and I was just kinda like ok maybe thats signaling its relatively stable and can raise money, but at the same time, that's a lot of rounds to have preferences ensure unprivileged shareholders get nothing, and also to have most of the hockey stick growth already tapped out.
This was in the middle of the boom when companies were fighting over talent, so I found it odd.
considering their series F was only ~5 months ago this doesn't seem too far-fetched!
Emojis would be far more appropriate for AI startups
They could stop at F and treat it as hexadecimal by adding digits: Series 4F, etc
Goldman Sachs recently stoked fear about software stocks due to claimed AI competition.
What if their strategy is this: slowly drive down software stocks, keep talking about AI, buy the downward market. Then cash in on the IPOs of OpenAI and Anthropic.
Then let OpenAI and Anthropic implode. Goldman Sachs had no problems underwriting webvan at the end of 1999, which then imploded in 2000.
Anyway, I just valued my dog at $1 billion post-money. You can buy it at pets.com.
Matt Levine has put this forward in his newsletter - if you're moderately influential you can go on TV and tell people that "X industry will be dead in 10 years" because of AI and then profit from the inevitable stock dip.
Because we live in the worst possible timeline the end result for AI companies does seem to be "too big to fail", where these massive investments will get foisted on working class people via a bailout or an IPO and index inclusion.
You're attributing way too much intent to what is the viewpoint of some random analyst at Goldman Sachs (who doesn't even control any purse strings). A year ago there was another big hullabaloo when a GS team wrote a long post about how AI companies would never make enough revenue.
Oh dang, no wonder they’re auto coding so much garbage in public (crap c compiler, crap browser, crap salesforce).
The timing of the Claude Code guerilla marketing campaign that seems to have started around new years is now making much more sense.
It's wild watching people fall for it
> The number of customers spending over $100,000 annually on Claude (as represented by run-rate revenue) has grown 7x in the past year.
Looks like major uptake from businesses. But all these articles keep saying there isn’t any actual value creation?
How are they not overvalued? At some point OSS will be sufficient for most businesses, what then?
Funny I consider this valuation modest considering what the max extent of the investment thesis is here.
SaaS and legal market caps have already contracted a multiple of the combined OpenAI + Anthropic valuations just based on the _threat_ of what they may be able to accomplish.
They'll have the data + knowledge edge over open alternatives and be able to implement + deploy (see the story about Anthropic employees being at GS for 6 months already[0])
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/06/anthropic-goldman-sachs-ai-m...
What’s your max extent? I was just doing some napkin math to think about where they’ll cap out.
They’ll become commodity AI compute providers while training and selling premium foundation models.
These companies are spending billions on custom datasets for a gazillion of valuable tasks and are clamping down on exfil for distillation. It's not guaranteed open source models will continue to keep pace.
China might purchase the data and train their models just to make the AI bubble pop. A few billions to throw a wrench in your competing superpower economy might be totally worth it
And yet open models have been tailing closer lately?
Then they will fall back on the selling their other real competitive products - hardware accelerators, phones and PCs, cloud storage and cloud compute, enterprise software, databases, operating systems, office and media suits... Oh wait...
What do you value a company at that has gotten to $14b in revenue in 3 years and has 60%+ margin on inference? Just out of curiosity.
60%+ margin on inference: source ?
+ r&d costs
Of course, if one does not "pay" for investment, benefits are easily made ..
I am struggling with this because I have an Anthropic offer vs another equivalent offer that is all cash.
But project out forwards.
- What happens when Google builds a similar model? Or even Meta, as far behind as they are? They have more than Anthropic in cash flow to pour into these models.
- What happens when OSS is "enough" for most cases? Why would anyone pay 60% margins on inference?
What is Anthropic's moat? The UX is nice, but it can be copied. And other companies will have similarly intelligent models eventually. Margins will then be a race to the bottom, and the real winners will be GPU infra.
If you have an offer, you can and should ask this question of whomever you're coordinating with. They will give you an honest answer.
I've been in this situation before. Anthropic has a stupid business model but the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. If you get in there you will be aligned with people who structurally do not lose.
Big picture, sure. We can talk about the millions that corporations will make and who's going to do what. But you're a person. $1 million in options is probably meaningful for you. Companies aren't IPOing, but the secret is that they're still paying employees cash for their options. SpaceX employees have had what's called a tender, which means they get to sell some of their hypothetical SpaceX options for cold hard cash in the bank that you can use to pay your mortgage. There's zero guarantee that Anthropic will do such a thing before the bubble bursts, but if they do, and you're there, who cares about a software company moat when you have enough money to buy a castle in Napa and pay to have a real actual moat with water in it and crocodiles, if that's what you want.
Others are made of different stuff, and are going to go right back to work, even though they could go off to a beach for the rest of forever somewhere.
Is their overall margin also about 60% too? Or something saner like 30%?
Their overall margin is negative.
When will we see the first $1T valuation for a private company? What do you call a herd of 1000 unicorns together?
We already have: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/feb/02/elon-musk-sp...
> What do you call a herd of 1000 unicorns together?
As millipede, clearly therefore millicorn.
The collective noun for a group of unicorns in AI is known as a hallucination, as in: a hallucination of unicorns.
Annoyed parent voice: What happened to the $13 billion I gave you 4 months ago?
check your credit card statement Dad
Is everyone competing to steal Google's ad cash-cow? This is the only way these investments make sense.
I think the idea is to reduce labor costs by replacing the human workers.
I haven't used it to replace workers though, only to replace Google search. My company is pushing copilot but it's only $16/user/mo. Hardly lucrative and no moat.
OTOH my company spends well into the $hundreds/user/day on Claude.
They are insane
"Post-money" is the euphemism for the glorious end of capitalism, when we will be paying in corporate scrip, Arasaka-style? :)
They did say they were going to cover the electricity bills...
Anthropic is the clear category leader in enterprise AI
Citation needed.
As the clear category leader in HN posting, I agree
Google has an edge, always a "personal experience" comment about leaving OpenAI/Anthropic in the dust every time new model gets posted.
It's marketing copy--I wouldn't expect them to say otherwise.
It is quite obviously Microsoft. They use the same (in my dictionary illegal) tactic they did with Teams.
I mean, I do think it is true, I’m not sure if this is like fastest toddler in the preschool or whatever.
Microsoft engineers use their offerings over OpenAI - their partner.
That isn’t nothing.
It is approximately nothing, since lots of MS engineers use Apple products too.
Apple does pretty well for themselves - are you sure that’s not a positive signal for Anthropic?
Absolutely wild valuation given their lack of a moat isn't it?
Microsoft is deeply entwined in OpenAI and has obvious reasons to dogfood, yet their people are using Anthropic solutions.
Valuation behemoth OpenAI has been forced by the market to use Anthropic standards a couple times, having no comparable solutions of their own.
… I can see it.
Anthropic's marketing somehow punches hard. Not sure why, but the stuff they do sticks. Not because the products are great, but because the way they communicate about it gives people the right feeling. They do have legitimately the best coding model now for most tasks, and for narrative prose, but the marketing stuck and people stan'd them even when they were trailing.
Anthropic develops tools for developers and power users which are the actual people doing the evangelizing and marketing for them.
It's Web 2.0 all over again. No moat, winner-take-all (economies-of-scale/network-effect). Just have to out-spend everyone else, and then figure out whether it was worth it all after you win.
Having a cutting edge model that requires tens of billions of dollars to train + a massive concentration of talent and experience + brand + one of, if not the best, coding experiences in Claude Code
These are all moats.
The moat seems rather small right now. There are 7 different companies represented in the top 10 models on openrouter.
Couldn’t their excellent model and coding experience generate another excellent coding CLI tool?
> tens of billions of dollars to train
Source??
> cutting edge model that requires tens of billions of dollars to train
seems like there are a lot of those out there these days, and the costs are falling
> a massive concentration of talent and experience
Apparently 3000 employees? There's plenty of talent to be found elsewhere. Plus employees can be hired away.
> brand
meh.
> one of, if not the best, coding experiences
Seems easy enough to replicate, given how quickly they built it.
Ain't that for the entire ai field.
FOMO, pretty much
They have a moat on hype.
At least from the software engineer pleb perspective, their moat is that their tools seem to work well more often than not. I wasn't comfortable with the idea of using GitHub CoPilot as our GenAI solution at work, and apparently that was a widespread feeling, because we switched to Claude Code, and it's been a relatively smooth transition from manual coding to GenAI agentic loops.
it's crazy that Google is spending something like 4x this in a year just for capex
wonder how much of that $30B will make it their way and pay that down
has me wondering if Anthropic is one of those confidential TPU buyers