| |
| ▲ | __loam 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | OpenAI and Anthropic are practically subsidiaries of Microsoft and Amazon. Neither would exist without billions in cloud compute credits from their corporate benefactors. Competing in Generative AI requires the kind of resources that are only available to extremely large and established companies. I do not think all the wrapper companies count when most of them are either being bought out by the big guys or have products that are immediately outmoded in the span of months. Maybe you can make the argument for AI art companies, but Stability basically disintegrated after wasting $100m dollars and Mid journey is directly competing with Google and Meta which is not where I would want to be (aside from running a ghoulishly evil company trying to kill artistic expression). | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sam Altman et al are only “quite new” to my friend’s newborn son :) | |
| ▲ | israrkhan 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | new ok.. but smaller? that is not true. | | |
| ▲ | michaelt 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | According to Wikipedia, Google has 187,103 employees, Amazon has 1,556,000, and OpenAI has a mere 3,000 employees. So essentially a lifestyle business - but some people do think they have growth potential. | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 3000 employees is a lifestyle business? lol. That’s a new one. | |
| ▲ | israrkhan 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In terms of market cap OpenAI (500B valuation) is 5x smaller than Google. | | |
| ▲ | malfist 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Leaving aside the pendatic "you can't be a multiple smaller than another object", 1/5 the valuation of the 5th most valuable company in the world is probably big enough to qualify you as a big company | |
| ▲ | not_kurt_godel 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Leaving aside the pendatic "you can't be a multiple smaller than another object" Feel free to not leave this out, it's a pet peeve of mine. Thank you for the moment of catharsis. | | |
| ▲ | capyba 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Can you explain this to me? Trying to understand but can’t haha. | | |
| |
| ▲ | rpcope1 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Market cap doesn't really feel like a good metric of anything other than what it would take to buy a company out. DuPont has a market cap of 30ish billion and 3M around 80B, and both are both larger and frankly more important than probably even Google. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, the fact that $2.5 trillion of actual investor money chose Google (Alphabet) means very little: what really matters is the opinions of anonymous commenters on HN (especially opinions that start with "doesn't really feel like") People are so careful when writing anonymous HN comments and so careless in choosing where to invest their own money and the money of funds of which they are the professional manager | | |
| ▲ | majormajor 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > the fact that $2.5 trillion of actual investor money chose Google Of course, a lot of money invested in Google was invested at a much lower price; if everyone sold all at once you'd have a hard time finding 2.5T of new money to buy all those shares. We could argue about if "not selling" is the same as "choosing again at the new price" every day... but... Google's not the interesting case here anyway. For a young company in a hot industry like OpenAI total market cap is even less relevant since so much of the company simply isn't liquid anyway and the numbers come from far fewer instances of purchases than for an established public one. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, OpenAI's not being publicly traded makes it harder to value it, but the comment to which I replied referenced 3 publicly-traded companies. |
| |
| ▲ | Jensson 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is a bet and not a metric of company size. Some people bet a lot on small companies, doesn't make them large. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Investors look at how much money is already invested in a company in deciding whether to invest. I.e., investors pay close attention to market cap. If Google's market cap were $25 trillion, practically nobody would buy Google stock (and practically everyone who already held the stock would immediately sell) because most investors do not believe that Google can ever pay enough dividends or buy back enough stock to justify such a high valuation. A company's market cap is a collective estimate of how much money the company will to return to investors in the future. When the company is publicly-traded in an open informational regime such as the US, this collective estimate is usually quite "accurate" in the sense that it is very difficult for any single analyst or single team of analysts to improve on the estimate. An investor can make a big bet on a small company, yes, but the market cap of a company is more than just an indication of how much money has been bet on the company: it also mean that every investor (big or small) who still holds the stock believes that the expected amount of money that company will return to shareholders exceeds the market cap: if there were a holder of Google stock that did not believe that, he would convert the shares into treasury bills or cash in the bank. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | umeshunni 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Both those companies are 2 orders of magnitude smaller than Amazon or Google. | | |
| ▲ | israrkhan 7 days ago | parent [-] | | By what metric? I meant valuation. OpenAI has 500B valuation, Anthropic has more than 60B. | | |
| ▲ | umeshunni 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Private market valuations and public market caps shouldn't be compared. Compare revenue or employee count instead. |
|
|
|
|
