They basically don't exist in the currently most profitable LLM market (coding).
Yes, subs like codex are heavily subsidized. But API billing has massive margins and that's what enterprises pay.
Yes, subs like codex are heavily subsidized. But API billing has massive margins and that's what enterprises pay.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-21/openai-se...
As for Anthropic, the rumors I remember seeing for their API margins were more like 85-90%, but I don't have a reference at hand for those. But once you know the API is wildly profitable and the subscriptions are roughly break-even and not even a big slice of their income, all of the investment makes a lot more sense.
That said, Anthropic has supposedly crossed over into profitability and made $1 Billion in profit so far this year, in the lead up to their IPO. Being profitable sounds good for launching on the stock market! But as a customer, that's noticeable in the downtime due to lack of compute, and only getting 50% access to Fable.
OpenAI might not be profitable, but they've got so much compute access that they've been able to give their customers full access to Sol, and as a result they've almost doubled their Codex subscriber base in the last two weeks (6 million on July 12, 10 million on July 21 - that would be an extra $1-$10 Billion in Annual Recurring Revenue that they've gained in just these 2 weeks). Doing the unprofitable thing in the short term can result in outsized rewards in the long term.
OpenAI's new Mac app doesn't even have a normal "Chat" option now. OpenAI might be chasing coding and b2b sales more now that they realise very few regular consumers pay for subscriptions.
I think you overestimate long-term relevance of popularity among code monkeys.