Comment by surgical_fire
4 hours ago
Wihout 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.
serving 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
> serving models is very profitable (70%+)
All your argument hangs on this.
I see no evidence of this being true.