Maybe they tried too hard to get good Q2 numbers, making revenue happen earlier and expenses later, and that now makes Q3 look worse? Either way, this does not look great
And they say that this will likely continue to grow until 2027 (when the long term commitment compute comes online, which comes with opposite problem .. will there still be enough demand)
But are they still a 1.5T USD company if their growth is already slowing this much?
Apparently you’ve missed all of Ed Zitron’s reporting?
So he can get all of his conclusions and predictions wrong based on his numbers and analysis, and then you think his value is in his numbers and analysis?
Additionally, the Anthropic S-1 does indeed show scalable profitable growth. This is perhaps the most shocking thing in the S-1, to me.
A better way to phrase your thinking might be that revenue is an indicator of demand.
The issue here is that they've not really tested what happens to demand when the prices moves to where it needs to be to cover the cost of keeping the lights on.
>People should really look at cash flow statements instead of just earnings. Anthropic published one and their cash flow was positive for the first half of this year.
All of that isn't very newsworthy though. We knew all that from the Q2 numbers. What is interesting is that reinvesting all their profits to make the number go up in the next quarter didn't work as well this time as it did all the other times
They stopped when the free packs stopped coming and they needed to finance their own.
Right now, I could start a business selling gold bars for $1 a piece. There would be more people interested in that than Anthropic.
ANT also has positive gross margins, so they aren't selling gold bars for $1.
I don't understand why people on HN treat ECON101 like some fringe theory every time this is discussed. This is basic stuff.
They have yet to release a model that has made more in revenue than it cost to develop...and each new generation costs more to develop than the preceding generation. Costs increases outpace revenue increases with every generation, across the industry, and LLM-based cash flows are highly negative even at Google and Microsoft.
Customer use of LLMs is decreasing after quarters of growth. Execs were all in on pretending LLMs were the future until the WSJ/Stanford report revealed what everyone outside of tech already knew: LLM use has not correlated with any measurable productivity growth in any non-programming industry. (And arguably, the same is true in tech as well: LOC has increased but quality has dropped, so the net change to productivity is de minimis.)