Revenue went from $3.7B to $13.07B — roughly 3.5x.

Operating loss went from ~$8.8B to ~$20.9B — roughly 2.4x.

Doesn't seem like a domesday scenario.

> Doesn't seem like a domesday scenario

Ceteris paribus, those figures imply a $45bn loss this year, $90bn loss next year and $110bn loss in 2028 before breakeven in 2029.

That's $250bn of losses to be financed from 2026 onwards. (They raised ~$120bn, $25bn up front and the rest based on milestones. So Another ~$125bn uncovered.) That only works if OpenAI stays a fundraising darling. So not a doomsday sceanario. But perilous, and dependent on short-term trends extending into long-term curves.

> Revenue went from $3.7B to $13.07B — roughly 3.5x.

> Operating loss went from ~$8.8B to ~$20.9B — roughly 2.4x.

> Doesn't seem like a domesday scenario.

Those two lines are moving up and to the right, but are not parallel.

It all depends on where those two lines meet (the break-even point): too far in the future and the company will be dead anyway. Almost all companies will eventually be profitable; the problem is that the majority of them will need constant cash injections to keep the lights on.

Like the old aviation saying: even a brick will fly if it has enough thrust. doesn't make the brick a plane, though.

just for completeness, I think the closer analogue is probably total expenses: $12.48 billion to $34 billion -- roughly 2.7x. But this is still pretty close to what you said, so I don't particularly disagree with the numbers.

I do wonder if this comparison is really meaningful. It looks like if they can grow infinitely, then at some point they should be profitable. However, that's already a somewhat sad story ("in the limit as x->inf, we'll actually _make_ money!"). And there are of course limitations. Anthropic, Google, open models etc are all real competitors, and it seems to me that there will only be one winner. If openAI is losing money faster than the others, then it may not survive long enough to reach that eventual profitability. And finally, the human population is limited. There isn't a true infinity that the pattern can extend to. If we've only reached 10% of the TAM that's fine, but if we're at like 70% (which personally I suspect is about right), then this looks bad.

This news matters because investors should prefer safer investments than: well at least it's not a "doomsday scenario" grade.

The AI companies also have a lot of space to grow their income (more ads, price hikes, ...). It seems realistic for them to turn profitable. But the market expected much more from these companies.