421–430 of 529 posts
This announcement completes the betrayal of their founding principles. "Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return." - Not advancing digital intelligence - While locking people into a superapp - Because they are further constrained to generating financial returns
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point - exactly - of a company being sustainable?
Being profitable isn't the same as sustainable. Even a simple shop isn't profitable for months if it needs to buy stock up front, and run some ads to let people know about it. The money for that comes from the shop owners as an investment. This is the same thing but on a slightly bigger scale, over a longer time frame.
US tech companies just continue operating because "revenue and growth".
I can't help but think building an "everything" app is so.. both unbelievably ambitious, and a folly. I am not personally convinced that people want all the things that this super app purports to do. I am from a generation that still sits behind a desktop computer when making "big purchases." I can't even buy a flight on my phone. I am so much less likely to want to have an AI agent do that for me. Then the idea that…
I think you lack imagination. This is going to be the future because it is legitimately a step up from the previous ways of doing things. I can do things that were way more difficult before. It doesn't have to be AI all the way - no one's asking AI to book things on its own and make the payments on their own. What does work is, make AI do the research and you verify and you do the payment. Human in the loop. To me th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't reporting anything yet. What we hearing is just from news media who get their leaks/info from investors who get some form of IR reports/ presentation. Both will do public reporting only when they IPO[4] and have regulatory requirement to do so every quarter. For private companies[1] reporting to investors there are no fixed rules really[3] Even for public companies, there is fair amount of leeway on how G…
Does the GAAP accounting matter if everyone passively buys shares due to the new fast entry rules, which corruptly will force us all to buy into these companies? The fundamentals and true value seem less relevant than ever: https://www.benzinga.com/markets/tech/26/03/51248353/michael...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the GAAP accounting matter if everyone passively buys shares due to the new fast entry rules, which corruptly will force us all to buy into these companies? The fundamentals and true value seem less relevant than ever: https://www.benzinga.com/markets/tech/26/03/51248353/michael...
Yes gaap absolutely matters. You can just choose not to play the accounting game, and only choose the ones that actually gaap viable as investment opportunities. For example mag7 - tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip. Some times the best play is just not to play. If you think they are too risky, walk away. There are enough good oppotunities
> mag7 (minus) tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip
Company Ticker P/E Ratio
Apple Inc. AAPL ~33
Microsoft Corporation MSFT ~25
Alphabet Inc. GOOGL ~29
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN ~30
NVIDIA Corporation NVDA ~38
Meta Platforms Inc. META ~28
Tesla Inc. TSLA ~378
How much do these names need to "dip" for you to consider them cheap?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being profitable isn't the same as sustainable. Even a simple shop isn't profitable for months if it needs to buy stock up front, and run some ads to let people know about it. The money for that comes from the shop owners as an investment. This is the same thing but on a slightly bigger scale, over a longer time frame.
If your shop is unprofitable for years with no chance to recoup any of the costs, you close it, as your investments run out, and investors and banks stop giving you money as you keep losing them. US tech companies just continue operating because "revenue and growth".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Friends of mine working in AI companies are saying we’ll be lucky if they only triple. More like 10-20x long term, especially for enterprise
Oh, I read it as the number of subscribers would triple, but you're suggesting the price will? That makes a little more sense, because the number of subscribers are so low that tripling won't really make much difference in terms of turning a profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't reporting anything yet. What we hearing is just from news media who get their leaks/info from investors who get some form of IR reports/ presentation. Both will do public reporting only when they IPO[4] and have regulatory requirement to do so every quarter. For private companies[1] reporting to investors there are no fixed rules really[3] Even for public companies, there is fair amount of leeway on how G…
They aren't reporting anything yet. What we hearing is just from news media who get their leaks/info from investors who get some form of IR reports/ presentation. The $24b figure is literally in OpenAI's announcement. The $19b ARR and $6b added in Feb came directly from Anthropic CEO recently.
And? That's not a legislated report; they can use whatever mechanism they want to, without disclosure, to produce numbers.
Lets wait until they are regulated as a public company, then their mechanism has to be both aligned with what legislation requires as well as clearly documented in their report.
the whole thing did not yet crash because it seems they can still promise even more without actually delivering definite results