"subsidizing" aka making 30% gross margin instead of 90%.
Meanwhile, OpenAI is at ~$25B ARR, but is likely not yet profitable.
https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/anthropic-growth-and-b...
Their link seems to claim semi analysis thinks it is 80%. It looks like it might be referencing this newer article from them, as the same picture is in both articles, but I didn't feel like paying to find out: https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/anthropic-3q26-profit-...
Limiting themselves to the profits from the compute they already have when capital markets are dying to give them cash at favorable terms would be foolish.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex
“First, we’re doubling Claude Code’s five-hour rate limits for Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans.
Second, we’re removing the peak hours limit reduction on Claude Code for Pro and Max accounts.“
Every one of these plans is a fixed cost. Anthropic doubled their limits without changing the price. Even if inference is wildly profitable and these plans aren’t subsidized, they’ve just cut the profitability in half.
And the non-plan usage that is being paid for directly is paid for monthly. If they can sell $1 of compute as $10 of inference then they have $9 the next month to spend on more compute. Of course the capital markets would want to give them money if that were true but they would have no reason to take it.
Why would a net 30 business need to borrow hundreds of billions over many years? Anthropic currently spends an estimated $5bn/month on compute so at most they need to float $5bn, but if they’re making 90% margins on compute, that $5bn would be paid for… within a couple of days. Where is the hundreds of billions of dollars?
Do you think that’s wrong?
And conversely, let's look at the amount Anthropic are spending on compute. Anthropic has just started paying SpaceX $1.25 billion per month for compute. At an 80% profit margin that would mean Anthropic is going to be bringing in $6.25 billion per month... that's more than their current reported revenue.
And that's just one contract for compute. We know that Anthropic also pay Google ~$3 billion per month for compute (based on their committed spend of $200bn over 5 years) which is $36 billion per year. At $36 billion per year on compute with 80% margins that would put revenue at... $180 billion.
Add in their spend with Amazon and Microsoft, Anthropic are spending at least $4 billion per month on compute, or $48 billion per year, all but equal to their revenue. If margins on tokens are 80% and an estimated $37.5 billion of revenue is per-token revenue, that needs just $7.5 billion of compute per year, less than $1 billion per month.
The numbers just don't add up. If margins are 80% and they have $48 billion per year in compute spend, revenue should be over $200 billion.
If the 80% margin made any sense whatsoever, Anthropic would be printing money, yet they're losing money, and have only been profitable for one month based on some financial engineering (pre-commitments billed after the fact to reduce their costs during one month).
My guess is margins are closer to 20% than 80%. That's the only way any of the numbers can make sense.
Whatever the actual net margins, I’m guessing any “80%” kind of figure is calculated as of full utilization of the hardware / capital, which of course they’ll rarely if ever even approach.
Even if margins are “only” 20% though, the magic beans are still real: If you could build (or rent) a box, fill it with magic beans, and get 20% margins against demand stretching out to the horizon, Wall Street would rob their grandmothers to give you cash to build or rent more boxes.
If it were true that they’re making money hand over fist they wouldn’t need to raise tens of billions of dollars every few months.
How do you know they are not?
It will be curious to see the cost of inference for these newly released open weight models and will help give an idea of the actual cost of inference. But for now, I think saying the $200 plans allows for "tens of thousands of dollars worth of inference" provides very little insight when you are measuring the inference cost in API pricing with an unknown margin.
The simple question to ask is, if it is so profitable, where is all the money going? If Anthropic have 90% margins on API usage and API usage is $50bn+ in revenue per year, where is the $45bn going? Why do they need to raise so much cash, constantly?
But I do wonder how a 60% margin would be realistic when Sonnet costs 3-6x more than GLM 5.2 hosted by third party providers.
Anthropic aren't building out the data centres themselves, they're renting/leasing/borrowing from companies that are doing the actual spend on building out infrastructure. And the data centre companies aren't spending their own money, they're borrowing too (hence Apollo investing in data centres). Anthropic are paying SpaceX ~$1.25bn/month right now for access to more compute, that's $15bn a year, more than what these supposed margins would require in total spend (based on current revenue estimates).
https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex
The SpaceX deal is a great example of Anthropic creating demand, i.e:
> We’ve agreed to a partnership with SpaceX that will substantially increase our compute capacity. This, along with our other recent compute deals, means that we’ve been able to increase our usage limits for Claude Code and the Claude API.
They committed to spending $15bn per year with SpaceX and then increased limits for customers on fixed cost plans, creating more demand without any increase in revenue.
So, sure, it's not necessarily that they are raising money because they are unprofitable, but no alternate explanation makes any sense. The argument that could maybe made in favor is based on announcements like this one:
https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-invests-50-billion-...
> Today, we are announcing a $50 billion investment in American computing infrastructure, building data centers with Fluidstack in Texas and New York, with more sites to come. These facilities are custom built for Anthropic with a focus on maximizing efficiency for our workloads, enabling continued research and development at the frontier.
You might conclude from that, Anthropic are financing Fluidstack's build out, but they're not.
https://x.com/fluidstack/status/2079250004510728559
Just after that announcement, Fluidstack raised $830 million to build out data centres, none of the money coming from Anthropic. Fluidstack are currently rumored to be raising another $1bn. Anthropic's "$50 billion investment in American computing infrastructure" is just committed spend on renting compute from Fluidstack, a commitment that Fluidstack then use to raise money to actually deliver it. If Anthropic making money hand over fist, they wouldn't need to raise for committed spend.
And thus we return to the original question, how does future demand translate to spend? Actual handing over of dollars?