This is in addition to bumping their CapEx spend to the extent their cash flow turned negative for the first time ever this quarter: https://arstechnica.com/google/2026/07/google-just-had-its-f...
The world doesn’t realize how desperately compute-crunched hyperscalers are to meet AI demand.
This is a better problem to have than SpaceX, which is renting out capacity obviously because it’s own AI products aren’t selling.
I don’t think this reflects desperation as much as strategy.
[1] https://www.mindstudio.ai/blog/sundar-pichai-google-compute-...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/21/google-must-double-ai-servin...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-22/google-sa...
[4] https://arstechnica.com/google/2026/07/google-just-had-its-f...
[5] https://thenextweb.com/news/google-caps-meta-gemini-compute-...
In any case, my point is that the SpaceX deal specifically likely has ulterior motives.
My point is that an ulterior motive is not necessary to assume when all their actions and statements point to them being severely crunched for compute.
I mean sure, if they had a choice between say, CoreWeave and SpaceX, they’d choose the latter for the nice bump to SpaceX’s financials and their stake… but not just for that, not when it contributes to their cash flow turning negative and their own stock taking a hit.
> The RPO can be anywhere from 3 - 6 years, sure, but even on an annual basis that’s like a hundred billion now.
OpenAI and Anthropic deals are mostly 5 year and Anthropic’s starts in 2027, accordingly these RPOs are sized for projected compute needs and run rate in 2027 not today.
The only way either lab could pay 1 year of RPOs today (~80B for anthropic and ~150B for OpenAI) is with a lot more debt or circular financing, the former of which is difficult in this market.
Everyone spending crazy money on capex right now says they have a crushing backlog and need more compute to protect their share price. I highly doubt the demand exists today at current prices if the big 3 hyperscalers magically had an extra 2-3GW of compute. It’s not like Anthropic and OpenAI are turning away customers offering to pay API pricing..
> Everyone spending crazy money on capex right now says they have a crushing backlog and need more compute to protect their share price. I highly doubt the demand exists today at current prices if the big 3 hyperscalers magically had an extra 2-3GW of compute.
I don't get this though: The theory is all these hyperscalers are simultaneously spending buttloads of money on CapEx to the extent it affects their stock price, and then they would lie about the demand to protect their share price. Why would they do all that when they could just do nothing and keep their firehoses of existing business revenue untouched and maintain their stock prices on the upward trajectory they already were -- like Apple?
> It’s not like Anthropic and OpenAI are turning away customers offering to pay API pricing..
We don't know, but clearly Anthropic has been struggling to keep Claude's 9's better than GitHub's 9's even after paying through the nose for capacity from competitors like SpaceX and Google.
I suspect OpenAI is managing only because Altman scrounged for compute like a madman way in advance, and most of its traffic is free users who can be arbitrarily bumped down to weaker models whenever compute is low. Whenever Anthropic does that Claude Code degrades and people complain.
This doesn’t mean more compute at any price is worthwhile. It also doesn’t mean that the SpaceX compute deal would even be offered to Meta.
> I don't get this though: The theory is all these hyperscalers are simultaneously spending buttloads of money on CapEx to the extent it affects their stock price, and then they would lie about the demand to protect their share price.
It’s not lying - it’s optimistic revenue projections. Your Sam Altman point is an example, these RPOs are real but what’s questionable is whether the AI labs can generate enough premium token API revenue to actually pay those commitments. Today’s OpenAI annualized revenue estimate is only 40B. Will they actually be able to 10x that to pay those RPOs? I’m skeptical especially with offloading inference to cheaper models.
> Why would they do all that when they could just do nothing and keep their firehoses of existing business revenue untouched and maintain their stock prices on the upward trajectory they already were -- like Apple?
The hyperscalers with proven revenue streams and strong financials (Amazon, MSFT, Google, arguably Meta) benefit from making the game more expensive than everyone, will get at least 50% of their capex back from this peak supply/demand mismatch and maybe other than AWS could easily use any excess compute for internal needs.
Edit. Google invested 900 million in 2015 for roughly 5% of the company which comes out to 71.5 Billion dollars at 1.45 Trillion dollar current valuation. That's an 80x increase.
I think Larry Page individually might also have a very large stake as well.
In order get that back by “pumping” SpaceX stock, SpaceX market cap would have had to increase $200B based on that investment, and then Google would need to sell the stock.
Also, for better or worse, SpaceX did increase by about 200B today.
For all it's faults, it is forming a massive military and telecom monopoly that is nearly unassailable. In the next few years, it can start directly competing with Verizon. The Ukrainian military and civilian population heavily relies on those satellites
I agree, which is just one more reason why the original reason you proposed for Google’s investment is very likely not correct. More likely is that Google got a good deal on compute from them. Normal business reasons.
> Also, for better or worse, SpaceX did increase by about 200B today.
The relevant question is how much it would have increased without Google’s investment of an additional $12B. If the answer is “more than $0” then the fact that it only increased $200B means it was a bad investment to pump the stock.