First let me say I really like this part of your guys narrative: you have really strong opinions about how infrastructure and IT should work at many levels, like technically and aesthetically, that seems real and nice and likable.
Focusing on just this financial narrative you're weaving, what stops a bank from selling "virtual racks" that work financially the same as owning an Oxide rack, but it's just AWS?
$1m buys you 42U of, whatever. You're handed an AWS account you do not pay for, but it has the $1m worth of, whatever in it, in perpetuity. Maybe the bank even throws in some fakey market you can "part out" and "sell" your rack to, years later, at some "market price."
It seems like, the product - and maybe the experience of buying the product - is what is most important to Oxide. It's really interesting to me, because I cannot wrap my head around what this narrative is:
You guys are Apple of Racks. But minus the iPhone, because there is no monopoly here. So, Apple (Minus iPhone) of Racks. Is that it? It's the rest of their offerings, which without the iPhone monopoly effects, are Buying Experiences. It's like when people buy $10,000 Mac Studios to "run LLMs", which of course they are going to do like, zero to one times, because they are excited about the idea of the product. For the audience that needs to "run LLMs" they buy, whatever, or rent. But they don't buy Mac Studios. Just because people do something doesn't mean it makes sense.
Is the narrative, AWS Doesn't Make Sense? AWS makes a ton of sense, for basically everyone. Everybody uses it and pays up the wazoo for it. And there are good objective reasons AWS makes sense, at basically all levels. Who is fooled by, "AWS doesn't make sense?"
The problem with AWS isn't even that they are expensive. It's that Amazon is greedy. It could be cheaper, which is a different thing than being expensive. It matters because "AWS stays greedy longer than the average Y Combinator company stays private" is an interesting bet for an investor to take. They could decide to be less greedy at any time, and indeed, it did not take long after offerings of S3-like storage from others led them to simply reduce prices.
What that is telling me is, I could take $100m in funding, sell $1m "racks" of equivalent compute on the Rolls Royce of cloud infrastructure, making everything financially and legally and imaginarily the same as ownership, and then take a $300k loss, right? On each "rack", same as your loss? It's a money losing business, but here I am making the money losing very pure, very arby. Is this what you are saying customers want?
Clearly they want a physical rack. By all means, I can send them a big steel box that provides them that aesthetic experience. Cloudflare, Google, they do the physical version of this all the time: dumb, empty appliances that are totally redundant, because people ask for them. RudderStack, Weights & Biases, a bunch of companies come to mind doing the same thing in software, like so called Kubernetes Operators that literally just provision API keys but pretend to be running on your infrastructure. People ask for Kubernetes operators, they made them, but of course, they don't do anything. They are imaginarily Kubernetes operators.
The reason there are licensing fees and rentals and whatever is the enterprise sales pipeline, right? Enterprise sales is, give people want they ask for. People ask for a price that's below $X up front, so that's what IT vendors do, and then it turns out people are okay with some ongoing licensing fees, so there. That's what they do.
So what IS it?