If their margins were anywhere near this good, they wouldn't need to raise so much money so often.
Your $200 subscription is a major net loss for them. The vast majority that pays for that would cancel in a heartbeat the moment they had to pay API prices. Which may or may not be profitable, I am not entirely sure. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is.
People here throw around crazy numbers - the dude above was claiming they have some insane good margins, numberd that he took out of his ass.
The only evidence I have is that they are incredibly unprofitable, and they keep raising insane amounts of capital like crazy.
There was a leak sometime ago that they were EBITDA positive during a quarter where they didn't pay for part of their compute. And EBITDA is a cute metric to use when depreciation is actually very important to them, as a model from a year or so ago is nearly worthless.
the vast majority of the labs revenue is from enterprise api usage (theres public sources from the information and ramp). but the risk there is customer concentration, where most of the revenue comes from other tech companies and a chunk of it is from foreign labs distilling
so i am drawing a conclusion that the labs' business model is good, maybe not as great as boosters think it is. if they make real progress on the biosciences like drug discovery that could turn it into an amazing business
All your argument hangs on this.
I see no evidence of this being true.
https://www.mindstudio.ai/blog/anthropic-inference-margins-7...
its even higher depending on the model, how optimized it is, and the chips!
I wouldnt die on this hill
Just because it is on some blog post, it does not make it true.
I wasted the time to read the first blog post. It considers 100% utilization over the course of years to calculate an estimation, and it did not consider depreciation for the model itself. That thing is extremely extensive to create, and after a relatively short amount of time is considered outdated.