Is Uber a SAAS? Palantir? AirBnB? Netflix? Amazon/AWS?
Uber and Lyft literally "sell rides for a fraction of what all this costs them" upto early 2025. I don't know how old you are but I started to use them back in 2012. I was one of their early users when you could sit next to the driver. From then upto 2025, Uber and Lyft used to literally cost me less than what just gas would cost me to drive the same distance.
This is true too: "It would then claim it’s worth 100x the valuation of the taxi service" - there was literally a website (might be up even now) that literally made this argument and why Uber was doomed to fail anytime now.
Your first two points are also true for Uber Lease - a product that was rolled out for drivers - they could choose to lease specific models and Uber in turn signed agreements with specific automakers. An exact parallel for these points, esp. the circular financing is hard to make because they are not even the same product but I imagine one would agree, on the whole, we are in the conception stage of LLMs and this industry is brand new and figuring things out.
This same pattern had happened when PCs were becoming mainstream. That was 40 years ago so memory of it might be faint or lost. Also VCs weren't really a huge deal back then either but the fundamentals were the same.
We are all overreacting over a nascent industry, upset that it's increasing prices for everyone and pushing humans out of jobs. This is understandable but the conclusion is wrong. We are letting emotions drive decisions.
Yes, and AI is the same sort of monopoly grab. Except not for Taxis, but for computing. Make a compute intensive process a necessity (that's where AI comes in) and buy 100% of all compute capacity, eventually buying up all the fabs and locking everyone out of acceptable general purpose computing, forced to move everything to the cloud.
This is overly dramatic and pointing that out is necessary because this could cause someone else, even if not you, tremendous anxiety and pessimism about the future: None of which is good for your health.
First of all, no one's been forcing anyone to use AI or "move everything to the cloud". AI is tremendous leverage. It's exactly as useful as a jet or FSD is for commuting. It expedites significantly intelligence-related tasks. No one is forcing anyone to use AI. However, just like a person who owns a jet gets to a place faster than a person without, or a FSD allows you to get work done instead of staring at other cars, a person using AI will get their tasks done quicker than a person without. But that doesn't force a necessity.
Moving "everything" to the cloud is also not going to be financially smart. Companies like Apple, Google, Cloudflare, etc are aggressively moving compute to the edge, locally on device. This increases your own chances of running services locally on device because the device manufacturers will build their hardware to match the demand.
Second, compute capacity has always been elastic. Supply constraints have forever been an issue and that's how markets work. Supply gets constrained, suppliers react to demand, market reaches equilibrium.
In 1996, I had a real tough time getting a T1 line to my office. By 1998, it was no longer an issue. By 2000 there was more fiber than we knew what to do with.
I had a real tough time hiring good, quality engineers 2020 through 2024. That was a constraint in the supply. The market reacted and now there are a lot more good, quality engineers.
Yes, there's a severe constraint now but the market is going to respond and we will have a very different situation in 2030.
Capitalism works. It's not always roses though and not everyone benefits all the time.
The primary difference is that starting a company means talking to people.
So while you can be inside a room, read books and try things out at a computer and become a great engineer, to start a company, you have to go out and talk to people - but the steps are exactly the same. The feedback loop is slower and far more noisy.
Computers don't lie but people do, and that's the essence of business.
I would say you are either very young or unfamiliar with Uber as a business. Uber was and continues to be extremely capital intensive and you need to qualify your "while". Uber burned cash for 14 years.
The one argument I can agree with is Uber didn't burn as much cash as Anthropic or OpenAI does but they are very different businesses with very different impact on humanity.
> It’s capital intensive, doesn’t easily scale without linear costs, is basically a commodity, and customers aren’t willing to pay what it actually costs
> It’s capital intensive, doesn’t easily scale without linear costs, is basically a commodity, seemingly has negative cashflow forever, and customers aren’t willing to pay what it actually costs. It’s basically the worst tech business model and yet somehow VCs caught a spell and threw every available penny into the fire.
We already agree on the first two. So the following remains:
"commodity, and customers aren’t willing to pay what it actually costs"
To that I say:
- AWS, Uber are all commodity
- Most customers of AWS, Uber aren’t willing to pay what AWS, Uber charges them
Disagreements?
HOW are AWS and Uber commodity? What commodity are they?
In what possible way could customers not be willing to pay what they're charged? Both companies saw billions in profits last year – is that paid unwillingly? Are they extorting their customers? If they're both commodities why wouldn't the customers just purchase from a different provider?