It has links to public sources on the pricing of both LLMs and search, and explains why the low inference prices can't be due the inference being subsidized. (And while there are other possible explanations, it includes a calculator for what the compound impact of all of those possible explanations could be.)
Prices would be significantly higher if OpenAI was priced for unit profitability right now.
As for the mega-conglomerates (Google, Meta, Microsoft), GenAI is a loss leader to build platform power. GenAI doesn't need to be unit profitable, it just needs to attract and retain people on their platform, ie you need a Google Cloud account to use Gemini API.
I believe the API prices are not subsidized, and there's an entire section devoted to that. To recap:
1) pure compute providers (rather than companies providing both the model and the compute) can't really gain anything from subsidizing. That market is already commoditized and supply-limited.
2) there is no value to gaining paid API market share -- the market share isn't sticky, and there's no benefit to just getting more usage since the terms of service for all the serious providers promise that the data won't be used for training.
3) we have data from a frontier lab on what the economics of their paid API inference are (but not the economics of other types of usage)
So the API prices set a ceiling on what the actual cost of inference can be. And that ceiling is very low relative to the prices of a comparable (but not identical) non-AI product category.
That's a very distinct case from free APIs and consumer products. The former is being given out for no cost in exchange for data, the latter for data and sticky market share. So unlike paid APIs, the incentives are there.
But given the cost structure of paid APIs, we can tell that it would be trivial for the consumer products to be profitably monetized with ads. They've got a ton of users, and the way users interact with their main product would be almost perfect for advertising.
The reason OpenAI is not making a profit isn't that inference is expensive. It's that they're choosing not to monetize like 95% of their users, despite the unit economics being very lucrative in principle. They're making a loss because for now they can, and for now the only goal of their consumer business is to maximize their growth and consumer mindshare.
If OpenAI needed to make a profit, they would not raise their prices on things being paid for. They'd just need to extract a very modest revenue from their unpaid users. (It's 500M unpaid users. To make $5B/year in revenue from them, you'd need just a $1 ARPU. That's an order of magnitude below what's realistic. Hell, that's lower than the famously hard to monetize Reddit's global ARPU.)
Just had a quick glance, but I think I found something to add to the Objection!-section of your post:
Brave's Search API is 3$ CPM and includes Web search, Images, Videos, News, Goggles[0]. Anthropic's API is 10$ CPM for Web search (and text only?), excluding any input/output tokens from your model of choice[1], that'd be an additional 15$ CPM, assuming 1KTok per request and Claude Sonnet 4 as a good model, so ~25$ CPM.
So your default "Ratio (Search cost / LLM cost): 25.0x" seems to be more on the 0.12x side of things (Search cost / LLM cost). Mind you, I just flew over everything in 10 mins and have no experience using either API.
Sure. Here's something I'd written on the subject that I'd left lying in my drafts folder for a month, but I've now published just for you :)
https://www.snellman.net/blog/archive/2025-06-02-llms-are-ch...
It has links to public sources on the pricing of both LLMs and search, and explains why the low inference prices can't be due the inference being subsidized. (And while there are other possible explanations, it includes a calculator for what the compound impact of all of those possible explanations could be.)
Thanks for sharing!
It's worthwhile to note that https://github.com/deepseek-ai/open-infra-index/blob/main/20... shows cost vs. theoretical income. They don't show 80% gross margins and there's probably a reason they don't share their actual gross margin.
OpenAI is the easiest counterexample that proves inference is subsidized right now. They've taken $50B in investment; surpassed 400M WAUs (https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/o...); lost $5B on $4B in revenue for 2024 (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-thinks-revenue-more-tr...); and project they won't be cash-flow positive until 2029.
Prices would be significantly higher if OpenAI was priced for unit profitability right now.
As for the mega-conglomerates (Google, Meta, Microsoft), GenAI is a loss leader to build platform power. GenAI doesn't need to be unit profitable, it just needs to attract and retain people on their platform, ie you need a Google Cloud account to use Gemini API.
Thanks,
I believe the API prices are not subsidized, and there's an entire section devoted to that. To recap:
1) pure compute providers (rather than companies providing both the model and the compute) can't really gain anything from subsidizing. That market is already commoditized and supply-limited.
2) there is no value to gaining paid API market share -- the market share isn't sticky, and there's no benefit to just getting more usage since the terms of service for all the serious providers promise that the data won't be used for training.
3) we have data from a frontier lab on what the economics of their paid API inference are (but not the economics of other types of usage)
So the API prices set a ceiling on what the actual cost of inference can be. And that ceiling is very low relative to the prices of a comparable (but not identical) non-AI product category.
That's a very distinct case from free APIs and consumer products. The former is being given out for no cost in exchange for data, the latter for data and sticky market share. So unlike paid APIs, the incentives are there.
But given the cost structure of paid APIs, we can tell that it would be trivial for the consumer products to be profitably monetized with ads. They've got a ton of users, and the way users interact with their main product would be almost perfect for advertising.
The reason OpenAI is not making a profit isn't that inference is expensive. It's that they're choosing not to monetize like 95% of their users, despite the unit economics being very lucrative in principle. They're making a loss because for now they can, and for now the only goal of their consumer business is to maximize their growth and consumer mindshare.
If OpenAI needed to make a profit, they would not raise their prices on things being paid for. They'd just need to extract a very modest revenue from their unpaid users. (It's 500M unpaid users. To make $5B/year in revenue from them, you'd need just a $1 ARPU. That's an order of magnitude below what's realistic. Hell, that's lower than the famously hard to monetize Reddit's global ARPU.)
2 replies →
Just had a quick glance, but I think I found something to add to the Objection!-section of your post:
Brave's Search API is 3$ CPM and includes Web search, Images, Videos, News, Goggles[0]. Anthropic's API is 10$ CPM for Web search (and text only?), excluding any input/output tokens from your model of choice[1], that'd be an additional 15$ CPM, assuming 1KTok per request and Claude Sonnet 4 as a good model, so ~25$ CPM.
So your default "Ratio (Search cost / LLM cost): 25.0x" seems to be more on the 0.12x side of things (Search cost / LLM cost). Mind you, I just flew over everything in 10 mins and have no experience using either API.
[0]: https://brave.com/search/api/
[1]: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing#anthropic-api