Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

23% Positive

Analyzed from 1131 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#revenue#openai#doesn#years#here#money#still#news#amp#seems

Discussion (29 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

nstart•about 4 hours ago
I'm a little confused here. Cost of revenue is lower than revenue. That's good. R&D is the main contributor to losses here and this seems normal in an industry like this. For OpenAI specifically, I think this is problematic. They were the first movers but despite the large R&D they've lost so much ground to Anthropic despite Anthropic seemingly gifting them with weird PR self owns. But if we were to extrapolate this to the industry as a whole, this seems more positive than negative. Am I reading this incorrectly? Unless there's an assumption that R&D costs have to forever go up in order to increase revenue, I feel like this shows that the AI industry is actually on a path to profitability in the long term.

Whether it can physically be as all encompassing as it makes itself out to be or whether it will just be healthily profitable remains to be seen. Kind of like how Uber went from "We'll autonomously drive the world" to "Look, we deliver food, goods, and people to locations and we figured out how to do that in a way that makes profits. Also, ads".

grey-area•about 3 hours ago
Cost of revenue is lower than revenue. That's good. R&D is the main contributor to losses here

What is counted as R&D is completely arbitrary. These figures are just playing accounting games to attempt to hide the massive ongoing costs.

We’ll see a little better when they IPO and are forced to attempt to make money but I wouldn’t invest in this business.

simianwords•about 3 hours ago
“We will see” and then what? Ed will move to the next grift. He’s been making predictions that keep failing
JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago
Ed?
Certhas•about 2 hours ago
The Uber comparison makes no sense. This is the opposite situation. Uber lost money on rides, OpenAI is (possibly) making money on inference. Uber used an R+D moonshot to autonomous driving to justify capturing an established industry without reducing costs meaningfully. OpenAI has a core product that risks becoming a commodity with open source models only 6 months behind.
simianwords•about 2 hours ago
Uber didn’t lose money on rides other than some edge cases. What’s your source for this claim?
Refreeze5224•about 3 hours ago
How in the world could you read that article and think there is anything positive about OpenAI's prospects? We've been hearing for months that these companies need to make trillions of dollars in a handful of years, growing at record rates in order to break even and justify their massive outlay.

It's not going to happen.

muglug•about 4 hours ago
Revenue went from $3.7B to $13.07B — roughly 3.5x.

Operating loss went from ~$8.8B to ~$20.9B — roughly 2.4x.

Doesn't seem like a domesday scenario.

lelanthran•38 minutes ago
> Revenue went from $3.7B to $13.07B — roughly 3.5x.

> Operating loss went from ~$8.8B to ~$20.9B — roughly 2.4x.

> Doesn't seem like a domesday scenario.

Those two lines are moving up and to the right, but are not parallel.

It all depends on where those two lines meet (the break-even point): too far in the future and the company will be dead anyway. Almost all companies will eventually be profitable; the problem is that the majority of them will need constant cash injections to keep the lights on.

Like the old aviation saying: even a brick will fly if it has enough thrust. doesn't make the brick a plane, though.

JumpCrisscross•about 4 hours ago
> Doesn't seem like a domesday scenario

Ceteris paribus, those figures imply a $45bn loss this year, $90bn loss next year and $110bn loss in 2028 before breakeven in 2029.

That's $250bn of losses to be financed from 2026 onwards. (They raised ~$120bn, $25bn up front and the rest based on milestones. So Another ~$125bn uncovered.) That only works if OpenAI stays a fundraising darling. So not a doomsday sceanario. But perilous, and dependent on short-term trends extending into long-term curves.

matusp•about 2 hours ago
The AI companies also have a lot of space to grow their income (more ads, price hikes, ...). It seems realistic for them to turn profitable. But the market expected much more from these companies.
pinkmuffinere•about 4 hours ago
just for completeness, I think the closer analogue is probably total expenses: $12.48 billion to $34 billion -- roughly 2.7x. But this is still pretty close to what you said, so I don't particularly disagree with the numbers.

I do wonder if this comparison is really meaningful. It looks like if they can grow infinitely, then at some point they should be profitable. However, that's already a somewhat sad story ("in the limit as x->inf, we'll actually _make_ money!"). And there are of course limitations. Anthropic, Google, open models etc are all real competitors, and it seems to me that there will only be one winner. If openAI is losing money faster than the others, then it may not survive long enough to reach that eventual profitability. And finally, the human population is limited. There isn't a true infinity that the pattern can extend to. If we've only reached 10% of the TAM that's fine, but if we're at like 70% (which personally I suspect is about right), then this looks bad.

HlessClaudesman•about 4 hours ago
This news matters because investors should prefer safer investments than: well at least it's not a "doomsday scenario" grade.
minimaxir•about 4 hours ago
Tell that to the SpaceX investors.
HlessClaudesman•about 4 hours ago
minimaxir•about 3 hours ago
At the end of his previous article (https://www.wheresyoured.at/ai-is-slowing-down/), Ed hyped this news as "a story that will possibly burst the AI bubble" and "imagine what the worst possible thing for me to get would be and you’re probably close." This news doesn't fit either criteria: OpenAI losing billions of dollars isn't shocking news and both AI boosters and AI skeptics have likely assumed that. If anything, the news that OpenAI has $25B on hand in cash as reported here, plus the $122B raised in March, show that OpenAI won't implode for another year or two if it does...and that doesn't say anything about the AI bubble. There's also the confounder that Codex wasn't released until this year which turbocharged revenue with an uncertain increase in operating costs, so it will be difficult to extrapolate 2025 finances to 2026 and beyond.

When I read "the worst possible thing for me to get" I had assumed it would be evidence that inference/Codex is fundamentally unprofitable (as Ed often blogs about) but there isn't enough information here to support that argument either: revenue is still greater than cost of revenue, and the major losses are clearly delineated.

besterman23•about 3 hours ago
Yeah, this pretty much seals it for me that Ed has basically nothing. Sure OpenAI isn’t currently profitable, but this doesn’t say to me that they can’t become so soon(ish).
HlessClaudesman•about 4 hours ago
“I had a guaranteed military sale with ED 209, renovation program, spare parts for twenty-five years… Who cares if it worked or not?!?”
pinkmuffinere•about 4 hours ago
It's possible that I'm just not up to date with current news, but I'm having trouble connecting this quote to the article. Or really even understanding the quote at all. Can you elaborate?
HlessClaudesman•about 4 hours ago
The commenter above seems to be describing late stage capitalism, where businesses exist mainly to milk investors, as told by bad boy tech executive Dick Jones in the 1980's action movie RoboCop.
sourcegrift•about 1 hour ago
Ed Zitron has proven trump wrong so many times it's going to be hilarious how right it will come out on this
rvz•about 4 hours ago
They know it is a scam, but it doesn’t matter as it is now too late.

That ship has sailed long ago into the IPO sunset.

thereitgoes456•about 4 hours ago
That’s absurd. Why couldn’t it still fail, especially when their last raise was at 20x revenue or more? These numbers are horrendous.
simianwords•about 2 hours ago
What is the right way to deal with Ed Zitron articles because he’s historically extremely inaccurate and makes wild claims.

People ignore all his horrendous takes from last year and still eat this years “analyses” like it’s Gods words.

He has been predicting the doom for years and years now and it is strange to see HN still putting credence here.

This is what he said around a week back

“ One of my sources has come forward and brought me a story that will possibly burst the AI bubble. The reason they brought this to me is that I’ve shown — and will continue to show — that I actually give a shit about this industry and the people in it.

If you’re wondering what the story is, know that it’s the information I’ve wanted for years, delivered as I have always wanted it, and I will treat it with the reverence it deserves. Imagine what the worst possible thing for me to get would be and you’re probably close.

I expect it to be out in the next two weeks, and you’ll know exactly when it runs. There’ll be a podcast and a newsletter, and very likely follow-on coverage elsewhere.

I can guarantee you it’ll be worth it, and you’ll be stunned by what I report.”

This is qanon tier stuff. He’s been pulling this shtick for a while and people still haven’t caught on.

besterman23•about 2 hours ago
Yeah if this is his “information he wanted for years” it’s pretty abysmal in terms of crashing the “ai bubble”.