They made $4 billion last year, not really "little to no money". I agree it's not clear they can justify their valuation but it's certainly not a bubble.
But didn't they spend $9 billion? If I have a machine that magically turns $9 billion of investor money into $4 billion in revenue, I need to have a pretty awesome story for how in the future I am going to be making enormous piles of money to pay back that investment. If it looks like frontier models are going to be a commodity and it is not going to be winner-take-all... that's a lot harder story to tell.
There is a pretty significant different between “buy $9 for $4” and selling a service that costs $9 to build and run per year for $4 per year. Especially when some people think that service could be an absolute game changer for the species.
It’s ok to not buy into the vision or think it’s impossible. But it’s a shallow dismissal to make the unnuanced comparison, especially when we’re talking about a brand new technology - who knows what the cost optimization levers are. Who knows what the market will bear after a few more revs.
When the iPhone first came out, it was too expensive, didn’t do enough, and many people thought it was a waste of apples time when they should be making music players.
It's a commodity technology and VCs are investing as if this were still a winner-takes-all play. It's obviously not, if there were any doubt about that, Deepseek's R1 release should have made it obvious.
> But it’s a shallow dismissal to make the unnuanced comparison, especially when we’re talking about a brand new technology - who knows what the cost optimization levers are. Who knows what the market will bear after a few more revs.
You're acting as-if OpenAI is still the only player in this space. OpenAI has plenty of competitors who can deliver similar models for cheaper. Gemini 2.5 is an excellent and affordable model and Google has a substantially better capacity to scale because of a multi-year investment in its TPUs.
Whatever first mover advantage OpenAI had has been quickly eliminated, they've lost a lot of their talent, and the chief hypothesis they used to attract the capital they've raised so far is utterly wrong. VCs would be mad to be continuing to pump money into OpenAI just to extend their runway -- at 5 Bln losses per year they need to actually consider cost, especially when their frontier releases are only marginal improvements over competitors.
... this is a bubble despite the promise of the technology and anyone paying attention can see it. For all of the dumb money employed in this space to make it out alive, we'll have to at least see a fairly strong form of AGI developed, and by that point the tech will be threatening the general economic stability of the US consumer.
Every new tech has companies start and fail, as the consumer market changes and things are tried and fail. There’s no way to predict ahead of time what will work, what won’t - and so a thousand ships are launched with only a few reaching shore.
Is that a bubble? I suppose it is; it’s also probably the right strategy.
> When the iPhone first came out, it was too expensive, didn’t do enough, and many people thought it was a waste of apples time when they should be making music players.
This comparison is always used when people are trying to hype something. For every "iPhone" there are thousands of failures
> I started a business that would give people back $9 if they gave me $4
I feel like people overuse this criticism. That's not the only way that companies with a lot of revenue lose money. And this isn't at all what OpenAI is doing, at least from their customers' perspective. It's not like customers are subscribing to ChatGPT simply because it gives them something they were going to buy anyway for cheaper.
