Prices are moving inference to highly profitable, oAI seems to have solved their training problems, and they're currently competing nicely with Anthropic on the coding side. I'd wait, too -- why fight this stuff out in public when you can stay private and have your big competitor deal with all the public company concerns? There's plenty of capital available in the private markets for them right now.
Given that they paused signups for their 20x Max plan, your assessment seems overoptimistic.<p>Their new Broadcom chips seem cool, and they had a nice model release with Astra. But, that doesn't mean they've solved the profitability question during an era of rapidfire open-weight model releases, extreme memory shortages, and intense political pushback.
I think that implies they're seeing unusual new subscription demand, yes? That's how I'd read it, not least because I worked through four resets this week on Astra, which is un unbelievable amount more inference than I've wanted from openAI really ever, and the highest ratio vs. claude since opus 4 at the very least, probably farther back.<p>I think there are few moats in the engineering use case, and a single new model can absolutely drive compute demand.
I agree with some of your points, but wouldn't memory shortages actually work in OpenAI's favor? Part of the reason for the shortage is them prepurchasing hardware, so higher prices for memory and other chips would make self-hosting and competing inference providers less competitive.
Debt cost is high since some time, going public probably is just cheaper.<p>Anyway, any evidence for "prices are moving inference to highly profitable" because they are still selling $20 for $1 with their subscriptions.
Companies that plan to go public don't push back their IPO dates if things are going well. It's a universal sign that the finances aren't in order when a company pushes back its IPO <i>multiple times</i>.<p>OpenAI and Anthropic are barely profitable on a "unit" basis when ignoring the costs of marketing and other COSS expenses. They're definitely not profitable on an EBITDA or GAAP basis or they'd already have IPO'd.
> Prices are moving inference to highly profitable<p>I hate to wave the Wikipedian protester sign, but...
I like Gaben's take on going public. This is a clip from a longer talk he gave which I think is really insightful into many aspects of the economics of software and company culture.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvS-IwYFCP4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvS-IwYFCP4</a>
Do people seriously trust what this guy says anymore?
However bad anthropic’s financials look I’m sure OpenAI’s look even worse
"I would say not 2026, yeah. We’ve got a lot of stuff to do."<p>Why is this even a "would say" kind of thing. Surely AGI - they've achieved it three times now, right? - has lead to a datacenter full of PhDs who will perfectly time the IPO.
Time for Dario to walk the walk
Maybe this is a dumb take but I don't think they'll ever go public. Their company is so volatile and unsustainable in the long-term that I don't think it makes sense to go public at all.
Their company is so volatile and unsustainable in the long-term that it makes sense to go public (for the current owners)
Yes, Sam definitely doesn’t want to be holding this bag.
Only if they can find a way to dress up their financials for the IPO filing. They don't want to get WeWorked.
It really doesn't matter. They're doing secondary offerings for employees and individual holders, and they'll have no issue allowing private transactions for larger holders.<p>The general wealth distribution has shifted to the point that they do not need access to public funds, and frankly, if they can't find private funds for their needs, it is a <i>huge</i> red flag that they would just be dumping on the public.
The problem with secondary offerings is that it means that someone in the private markets winds up holding the bag. It is in the best interests of insiders to have the public holding the bag if and when things go south. Even if you don't believe it will ever go south, the profits OAI would need to generate to justify the investment the private markets have flooded into OAI are absolutely gargantuan, and they are generally not built to sit around for multiple years collecting distributions. They need to return money to their LPs, and soon.
> it is a huge red flag that they would just be dumping on the public<p>unless the public is clueless
In its current state the economics of the company make little sense to me. The astronomical costs to execute a prompt versus the relatively tiny price tag to the customer smells like an Enron scandal to me except everyone knows it and we’ve accepted it. Wall street is less forgiving.<p>Isn’t one of the reasons to go public to raise capital? They seemed to be doing that just fine without the weight of the open market with extremely profitable companies like Nvidia funneling billions of dollars in.
How much does it cost to execute a prompt in your estimation vs. the cost to the customer? Even being a DeepSeek provider is profitable so long as you have utilization and the AI provides mostly have high utilization.
I have not gotten good numbers on the real inference costs, its kind of annoying. Most comparisons are with the API costs, where we have no idea how profitable it is.
> Wall street is less forgiving.<p>Have you heard of $TSLA before?
> Wall street is less forgiving.<p>We've seen multiple times how "Wall street" is an exit for insiders, with retail investors left holding the bag.
I was just thinking of this today. AI is pretty much precisely a Theranos style grift, but unlike Theranos, who were shooting for something outright impossible, Dario and Sam may be running the biggest "fake it till you make it" success story of all time. Because like Professor Harold Hill they came through in the clutch at the last possible moment, and produced a band that could kinda play music, enough to win enough faith and goodwill to fund the next round. That kind of good fortune is going to be worth untold billions if not trillions, and it's gonna make a lot of programmers butthurt because their hopes of getting in on the ground floor and being a "founding engineer" in the <i>next</i> Silicon Valley unicorn are dashed forever, because the Valley doesn't need them anymore. Just a business bro and enough compute to <i>generate</i> the operations for the business.
the only way they never go public is if they die quickly<p>edit: which I doubt btw. investors are going to want to dump the bags very soon
They are constantly out of money, going public would be the dumbest move imaginable. They are unstable, not only financially, but in leadership.
I mean, this seems fairly clear.<p>Either OpenAI fails, and goes nowhere.<p>Or it succeeds, in which case IPOing will be a quaint aspect of history.<p>People really aren't following through on what it means for any of these companies to succeed.
This gives off major "we don’t trust our own product" energy. Actually, they tell exactly this. Matrix vibes, anyone?
Also, unpopular opinion: The 4th movie isn’t as bad as people say.
I didnt even know there was a 4th movie
Dumb question (I should just sit down and watch rest of the movies, I've only seen the first one): can you explain the "matrix vibes" you're referencing. Spoilers are fine.
I would suggest watching the Animatrix - particularly <i>The Second Renaissance</i> (part 1 & 2) which tells the story of how humanity ended up at war with the machines. It's only about 20 minutes total, but it's really well done.
I recently watched Matrix 1, 2, 3. Matrix 1 is amazing - if you feel called to rewatch it - watch it, and enjoy it. Might be better than how you remembered. I made the mistake to watch Matrix 2 and 3. Honestly, I suggest you just DON'T. I have not seen Matrix 4, and don't plan to. Best of luck!
[flagged]
It's the worst ever
[dead]