Margins of 60%? On inference maybe but that disappears when you price in model training.

This guy's analysis says they are bleeding out despite massive revenue

https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropic-is-bleeding-out/

In Jan, when deepseek launched, Dario Amodei had to disclose they spent about $10M to train the last generation of models (his arguments was deepseek was on the curve, not breaking it).

They earned $250M in May based on ARR, and about $400M in july. Model training is going to be amortized over multiple years anyway. I am not privy to how much they spent, not going to comment on that. GM was public news, and hence I got that.

Re Zitron's analysis, I don't find them to be reliable or compelling.

	▲	singron 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It doesn't make sense to amortize model training over multiple years since they train multiple models per year (e.g. Claude 3.5, 3.7, and 4 were released within 12 months). Or you can, but then you have to overlap amortization schedules multiple times over. E.g. if they amortized over 24 months, then they would still be amortizing Claude 2.1, 3, 3.5, 3.7, 4, and 4.1.
	▲	kgwgk 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Model training is going to be amortized over multiple years anyway. Claude 4 launch was not even fifteen months after the launch of Claude 3 (which is discontinued). The “multiple” is 1.2 - I wouldn’t call that “multiple years”.