undefined

points

[-]

Even with Chinese models this close Moonshot only makes $1B in revenue compared to $60B for Anthropic. Enterprises (where all the real money is) will almost always pick a turnkey solution like Anthropic rather than messing around with running their own open weight setup

by Slartie14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Nobody has to "run their own setup". Just buy inference from one of the many different open weight inference providers out there. You can use non-chinese ones as well if you don't trust Moonshot AI.

At this point, the only reason why Anthropic has an advantage is laziness on the deciders' side (of which there is a lot) and, for non-coding work, the Claude harness is significantly better than most alternatives. For coding there are several model-agnostic alternatives on par or better than the frontier labs' own offerings. But arguably that is not yet true for office/document work.

by staticman213 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

If you only have to look at revenue to determine the value of a company stock picking must be very easy for you.

Calculate the price to revenue ratio of all companies and select whichever ones have the best ratio.

by jrflo13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Not saying that's the only metric that matters, but if the closed labs are truly threatened by Chinese and/or open weights models the evidence has not showed up in the financials yet

by guybedo14 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

i agree with this, "Enterprises will almost always pick a turnkey solution".

For now it's Anthropic. But i don't see how they can maintain this leader position when other companies can provide similar services with models good enough for 90% use cases and at way lower cost.

Anthropic so far is doing a good job building and serving frontier models, they built a nice toolset around it (the web ui, desktop and cli apps ...) but the problem is to justify their IPO price and the huge investments when their moat is so thin

by jrflo14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That's fair, the moat is definitely thin now, but despite that we still haven't seen a mass exodus from enterprise to cheaper models despite ~1 year of these models being actually capable enough to use in a professional setting, their growth numbers remain ridiculous. Whether their moat is inherent bureaucracy in switching, liability, odds that they will remain at the frontier long term, or whatever, it appears to be working (so far).

by objektif14 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I don't think so especially when cost of building software is approaching zero.