141–150 of 458 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The branding of Claude is so much stronger than ChatGPT. Absolutely not, you live in a bubble. Everybody knows about ChatGPT. Few non-programmers have heard of anthropic or claude, nor do they care. But they all know what ChatGPT is.
ChatGPT is a word now. People may use Perplexity, or Google, or Grok to ask questions online. And later they tell you "ChatGPT told me this". It's a new "I googled in Yahoo".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree, both are coexisting fine today.
A series "H" for $65 billion and no path to profitability is existing fine?
As someone who knows admittedly knows nothing about startup funding rounds, how many more rounds of funding can they do before an IPO? Is it effectively infinite?
usually you would go through seed funding, the series a,b, and possibly a1 and b1. If you entered c or d territory it meant that you still had a chance but vc would be following you very closely. After d, you could raise money, but it would be under very unfavorable conditions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do investors cash out? Do they sell to new round investors?
Going off the other reply, I wonder if a highly-active secondary market means that companies can raise series [A-Z]+ rounds effectively forever, where each "round" just refers to a giant purchase of shares under strict company supervision. Is this the new game for startups?
The judgment is subjective though, so pushing the boundaries could be a calculated risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the market almost certainly can’t support two foundation model labs given the increasingly little difference across models and the massive sums of cash required to keep it all going. There is no big 2, just a race to survive and be the big 1.
isn't Google going to win the race anyway ?
How the hell do you crush a ~1T company on the one thing they have all their focus on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The branding of Claude is so much stronger than ChatGPT. Even Anthropic is such better branding than OpenAI (especially considering they're not open at all). My wife knows about Claude because that's what I use and we pay for. She uses it also as a result. And inevitably she will talk about Claude to her friends.
OpenAI is as open as Anthropic is anthropic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do ordinary people really know what Anthropic is?
Of course not. Normal people are using gemini, it comes pre-installed on Android now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but GPT-5.5 has closed that gap at a time when a lot of Anthropic customers are looking for cheaper alternatives. GPT-5.5 is a bit more expensive than Opus ? Current list prices | Model | Input | Output | | GPT-5.5 | $5/MTok | $30/MTok | | Opus 4.8/7 | $5/MTok | $25/MTok | Deepseek perhaps would be the top threat on a pure price/performance metric for either of them. It doesn't look like OAI is going for the value…
Comparing $/MTokfor models makes as much sense as comparing $/ghz for CPUs. Models have different tokenizers and take varying number of "thinking" to get to a solution. A far better proxy is how much it takes to do a run, which takes all of that into account. Such metrics are much harder to gather, but once source claims $3357 for gpt-5.5 vs $4686 for opus, the opposite of your conclusion. https://artificialanalysis.…
Everything else is subjective to your setup, use case, configuration tuning and so forth.
More importantly bean-counters and decision makers at even 150+ seat orgs are looking at pricing sheets and enterprise contracts not how it performs for some team in a specific harness today to make million dollar annual contracts. It is not common for procurement teams to do commission the level of detailed analysis or large scale pilots that will actually hold for the duration of contract.
That doesn't mean that GPT-5.5 is selling less than Claude at all, just that cost is not the primary driver if list price is not cheaper, there is reason these are published in the same format by every vendor, because the common metric is how finance likes to compare with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Databricks series L round raised $4B in late 2025, but earlier this year they raised another $5B so technically they've maybe completed series M round and are "on" series N round now? The press releases are a bit confusing to me.
It's semantics, but the latest raise might have been a follow-on to Series M, not a new round (to be clear, I know nothing about their finances, just speaking from experience at another company).