Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#861

Post by zuzululu »

Waterluvian wrote: post #373
rootusrootus wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TSLA has a forward PE of ~200x. That is probably the most logical comparison with SpaceX. Proof that the market can stay irrational for quite a long time. It fills me with a bit of dread about the future of the market. I am 10 years out from retirement, have a bit over 1M sitting in that market, and I wonder if it will implode in the meantime. I am fairly committed to the "invest like a dead man" (i.e. index funds, n…

About 10 years out as well. I’ve concluded I just invest a very balanced set of index funds and bonds and GICs across a handful of institutions, and then invest in my home because even if the housing market collapses I get to enjoy my nice home. Other than that I’m just not over investing for retirement and instead making sure the money is spent today on family growth and experience. I eventually just got tired of ev…

would you invest in vending machines

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#862

Post by Octoth0rpe »

SkiFire13 wrote: post #857
Robotbeat wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast is not a rapidly growing company, though. This isn’t hypothetical. SpaceX is increasing Starlink revenue by like 50% per year. And their current Starlink constellation, about 10,000 satellites, has been launched entirely by Falcon 9. They’ve been waiting to launch much larger satellites on starship (in fact they had versions of these ready for several years now, and recently did suborbital tests of some of th…

You're trying to justify SpaceX's valuation using Starlink, but it's clear from the S-1 that it makes up only for ~5% of SpaceX estimated TAM.

Many people think their claimed TAM is total fiction, and attempting an actual realistic TAM relies far more heavily on starlink. From morningstar:

> Our base-case forecast entails $56 billion in revenue for Starlink in these niche and growth areas by 2035, representing about 45% of the identifiable market we’ve sized

source: https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/spacex-what-investors-nee...

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#863

Post by l23k4 »

matwood wrote: post #848
l23k4 wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Following the rules of passive indexes is the whole point. The whole point of these indices is to represent the market, the rules are unsustainable if they cause too big of a divergence from that goal. > The blatantly corrupt move to change the rules Why do you think nobody in the financial press is reporting on this blatant corruption? Is it because this conspiracy also includes all of the news media?

There’s too much anti AI/Elon emotion to have discussions around this issue at this point. HN is usually pretty good about rational discussions, but AI has really triggered people on both sides. For example, yesterday I posted a link to the Nasdaq faq about the change, and my comment was flagged hah!

Yep, almost all of my comments questioning this conspiracy theory have been flagged, with many being set [dead] by them moderators.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#864

Post by l23k4 »

worik wrote: post #843
l23k4 wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in the face of such apparent malfeasance perhaps no longer Do you have any sources to share in support of this claim of malfeasance?

> Do you have any sources to share in support of this claim of malfeasance? Not here, this is a casual discussion not a scientific seminar. But use Occam's Razor and modern history Point 1. Corruption has penetrated the highest echelons of USAnian politics. The president is unabashed in his corruption and has corrupted (is corrupting) the financial regulators (I follow Molly White who has been particularly good on th…

>Point 1. Corruption has penetrated the highest echelons of USAnian politics. The president is unabashed in his corruption and has corrupted (is corrupting) the financial regulators (I follow Molly White who has been particularly good on this)

Sure, but indices are really not a heavily regulated space. The government doesn't have any obvious, direct influence here.

But uh, do you genuinely believe that the Trump admin would pull this off without the story leaking? It's an incredibly leaky administration, now supposed to be exerting influence over the most leaky industry in the world.

>Point 2. Space-X is valuing itself at an astonishing value that is not anchored in its business activities

If SpaceX is overvaluing itself, they'll look really silly at IPO! This is a very strange complaint.

>Point 3. The purveyors of these IPOs have been doing their best to get the rules changed (because reasons blah blah blah), the change will mean that managed funds, if they follow their usual practice, will feel compelled to buy in at the offer price - a massive inflow of capital that will make many people incredibly rich.

According to whom? The consensus in serious financial medias seems to be that indices are doing the rule changes to avoid divergence. I've tried to look, but I can't find any reporting suggesting that the "purveyors of these IPOs" had anything to do with this.

These companies are already among the 20 biggest in the US, it's genuinely going to be a big problem for e.g. the S&P500 to keep them out.

>But these are very worrying times. Especially for the USA.

I agree! However, not everything that happens in the USA is related to Trump.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#865

Post by Lplololopo »

hectdev wrote: post #758
Lplololopo wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who? What payload? The only thing which increased the payload is starlink itself. Fine he might send his competition in space. Amazon and Leo. And then?

Check out K2 Space. They are planning a large bus satellite that can ferry deliverables to different orbits. They are just one of many many companies just itching to send large mass objects into space at low cost.

They are doing the same marketing garbage as Space-X and to no surprise, were founded by ex Space-X people.

You need companies actually wanting to send stuff up there.

Musk and K2 Space are desperate for customers and the fact, that they talk about datacenter in space, which doesn't make sense (for at least the next 30-50? years), should tell you everything you need to know.

It is very easy to just lay down energy cables and fiber somewere and build a datacenter. This datacenter can get upgraded hardware without any further big investments, is running for years without issues, can be maintenanced and the origianl infrastructure gets cheaper every single year.

Someone said Space-X is a generational company. Like wtf? Every normal datacenter on earth will always be cheaper on the ground than in space. The only advantage you have in space is solar energy efficency and these prices are still dropping on earth and you don't need to send these panels up in space. And batteries will have a fast RoT.

In space, you have to first even build and solve fundamental issues like "how do i cool reliable a lot of energy", "how do i send big payloads reliable to space", "How can i build datacenter hardware/rebuild datacenter hardware to be space stable".

And why are they doing this because they have to not because its more cost efficient.

Leo orbit is a lot better than what we had before with 30km but your mobile phone can't suddenly do realtime and low latency internet just because starlink sells it like this. The current starlink mobile phone service is still slow and they need to even prove they can do it. For this they need starship because the starlink v3 satelites, they need, are to heavy for falcon 9.

And it doesn't make it better for Space-X if they already have other companies who also want to do this as it lowers their margin and they need to recup their R&D.

Space-X Starlink satelites are the main driver of payload increase in the last few years. Starlink itself!

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#866

Post by dragandj »

runako wrote: post #612
dingaling wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The value of the stock is your share in the underlying business. Which for most investors with Class C/D shares is... the square root of zero. They assert no control over the business, the only way to benefit from the stock is to find another shmuck to buy it at a higher price.

The price of a growing business should go up because it has more options to create returns for shareholders. Use Aldi (revenue ~$120B) as an example. Do you think a person would be a shmuck to buy a slice of it now versus when revenue was $1 million? If not, why not? Your answer will help understand why stock has value even without voting control or dividends.

It depends. What if Aldi bled a trillion dollars for this revenue of $120B? Would it be a desirable purchase?

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#867

Post by deadbabe »

pqtyw wrote: post #470
tasuki wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somebody will be left holding the bag eventually. I think so too. I also thought that about Facebook: IPO around 40, swiftly down to 20 - I was laughing about stupid retail getting wrecked. Now it's around 600...

Maybe you are right, maybe not.. However Facebook as an example seems entirely irrelevant, though? It was valued 15 P/S ratio at IPO and went down to 10 a year after the IPO. You'd have a point if Facebook IPO at $400 instead of $40. But it took it 10 years to reach that. SpaceX IPO price already has many years of extremely high growth priced in. Comparing it to Facebook's or Google's IPOs is like apples to oranges.

Asteroid mining alone could be huge.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#868

Post by Lplololopo »

ben_w wrote: post #560
Lplololopo wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'generational company'? Are you on drugs or so? All of Musks business stuff highly depends on first mover advantage. If people now selling it as a 'generational company' than it becomes even more stupid. He didn't invent an unkown solution he is hiding to transform something into gold, he only put a lot of money into rockets. And the rockets right now don't even have enough payload to have unlimited potential. If Spa…

> All of Musks business stuff highly depends on first mover advantage. Do they? Out of all of them, I think only one of them really depends on, or even benefits from, first mover advantages: Starlink. Tesla famously gave away all their patents, and is also being overtaken by Chinese companies with cheaper batteries because batteries are the expensive bit; SpaceX rockets are theoretically well protected because nation…

Tesla did not gave away its patents. It only says that if you want to use Tesla patents, we can use your patents.

Tesla won a lot of by being the first mass produced electric car.

Yeah the fact that China overtakes Tesla is a huge problem with Tesla and forces them to spread out. From all Musks hussles, only Tesla Cars and Space-X Starlink make money.

These two business are good running businesses, given. But these are not Trillion Dollar valuation companies.

Without the hype for these two things, nothing else would be possible.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#869

Post by skywhopper »

jonfromsf wrote: post #850
k2enemy wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bonds are no longer recommended. Current research indicates 100% equities to be the best composition leading up to, and past, retirement. Are you referring to Anarkulova et al? Might be worth mentioning that the fixed income part is replaced with international equity, not more domestic equity.

Stocks for the Long Run makes the pretty compelling case that over longer holding periods stocks are less risky than bonds.

Yes, and “I’m nearing retirement” is the opposite of the long run.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#870

Post by cherry_tree »

gitaarik wrote: post #835
cherry_tree wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's maybe a bit of an unfair, out-of-balance comment. Google Gemini had it's own fails on the other side of the extreme. Both have corrected themselves. Don't keep coming up with old stuff.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN