It's a little weird. I work for Google, but I spend way more time helping get Anthropic serving and running than anything to do with Gemini.
That's b/c the people working on Gemini serving are in GDM.
Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
91–100 of 868 posts
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#92It feels like the market is full Wiley Coyote on frontier model makers, and I like Anthropic's B2B business model. But all progress points to a commodification of foundation models--Google first named it as "we have no moat, neither does anyone else." So there must be some secondary play driving this, right? Hardware sales? Hedging for search ad revenue? Still feels mispriced. I think asset inflation leaves too much…
I haven't thought about any secondary play, but if these companies converge on Google's TPUs, they would probably eagerly slice from NVIDIA's current market.
> In September 2025, Google is in talks with several "neoclouds," including Crusoe and CoreWeave, about deploying TPU in their datacenter. In November 2025, Meta is in talks with Google to deploy TPUs in its AI datacenters.
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
What backfired? Ant's recent rise has little to none to do with retail subscribers, it is Claude Code with Opus 4.5+, followed by their Mythos stunt I would say the flood of $20 Claude Subscribers due to news cycle backfired on them, now everyone is getting worse outputs and exposed their shortage on compute, which they can't fix anytime soon. Pretty much everyone I know has both cc and codex now, just because how un…
> What backfired? I think it was psychological to a degree. For many consumers OpenAI, or at least ChatGPT was AI. The controversy was enough for folks to be introduced to competitors in the AI space and suddenly OpenAI's success felt a lot less inevitable. I agree with OP though that this won't actually be the cause of OpenAI's downfall, should it happen. But I still think it's an interesting inflection point.
> introduced to competitors in the AI space and suddenly OpenAI's success felt a lot less inevitable.
This is true. OpenAI WAS the story of AI, now it is just 50% of it, at max. Losing the monopoly of imagination towards AGI is bad for them.
One thing I don't agree though, consumers aren't the important part of AI, they are a liability.
AI is too expensive, consumers can't pay for it. Instead they will compete with enterprise for the same tokens, with less money.
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#94my take is Anthropic needs a large cash infusion since it's the one of the popular model providers. if it runs of out of cash - then it's bad for the whole industry. same as OpenAI. so all players - will provide cash & compute to keep them going.
They need compute
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#95my take is Anthropic needs a large cash infusion since it's the one of the popular model providers. if it runs of out of cash - then it's bad for the whole industry. same as OpenAI. so all players - will provide cash & compute to keep them going.
> if it runs of out of cash - then it's bad for the whole industry. Why? I don’t think we would suffer if anthropic disappeared tomorrow
Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Meta, Nvidia. All their stock gains in the last 2 or so years were because of the AI hype. And who knows how much money the borrowed and promises they made on the assumption that their stock will continue to rise in the same pace for years to come. When one domino falls, they will follow. So they have every incentive to keep the music going for one of their "friends".
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#9610B at their valuation from last November is an absolutely killer deal. If Anthropic had sufficient compute supply they could raise at 2x easily if not 3x.
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#97[deleted]
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#98Cool. Will they use their balance sheets to pour all of this cash or are they going to bring the banking system to its knees and then we bail out everyone again ?
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's apparently worth more than products Americans constantly buy and rely on for their main life What are you counting in this category?
There are countless examples, but let's say Ford. Worth $150 billion, $50 billion not counting debt. My neighbors just gave Ford $60k. It'll be a while until my neighbor gives Anthropic $60k.
Did you add Google, Meta, Apple, Amazon in that because more people consume from these firms than Ford
Re: Google plans to invest up to $40B in Anthropic
#100"The Alphabet subsidiary is committing to invest $10 billion now, at a $350 billion valuation for Anthropic, with another $30 billion to follow if Anthropic hits certain performance targets, according to Anthropic." this is insane. on the secondary market the valuation is 2-3x that. what gives?
The GOOG and AMZN deals announced earlier this week would be considered part of the same Feb'26 round. I.e. it would have the same seniority rights as that round.
It is not uncommon to keep a round open after the formal announcement for a bit so that few investors who could not close for whatever reason are part of it. It can be hard to line up everyone at the same time, especially when they are public companies.
---
Specific to your point on why valuation can be lower than market at the same time - Goods(and stocks) while feel to be homogeneous, divisible, fungible, they are not. Size can value of its own.
A block of 10% shares may be worth more (or less) than unit share price, because them being available together has a property of its own, making it either more desirable when someone wants to acquire or harder to sell because there is not enough demand if all of them get dumped at the same time [1]
In this deal terms, just cause few ten millions are trading at $850B, or some investors can put in say $1-2B doesn't mean you can raise $40B at the same valuation.
There isn't depth in the market to raise $65B (including the AMZN deal) at $850B valuation. There is always some demand at any price point in the demand supply curve, you will probably find few people who will buy few shares at $10T, or $100T or some ridiculous number but that doesn't mean you can raise a large round on that.
Strictly speaking it is not even $350B per se, i.e. Google and AWS benefit from this as vendors. It very much like vendor financing with convertible debt. Meaning it is worth that much to them, but not to you and me because we are not getting some of the money back as sales that boosts are own stock.
---
[1] In the same vein, price can also depend on what you are getting in return, hard immediate dollars is the highest value. However if you are getting shares in return, you can usually negotiate a premium depending on risk of the shares you are getting.
The recent SpaceX - Cursor deal is a good example, any founder would likely take say $10B all cash offer over the $60B from SpaceX, or price would be closer to cash if it GOOG, AMZN, APPL shares instead - proven deeply liquid market etc.