| ▲ | goos 2 hours ago |
| Why would having more costs and less income allow them to pass savings on to the end user? |
|
| ▲ | rjh29 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They already invested in the massive datacentres of GPUs sitting idle. They have fewer users so they can deliver more inference per user - more thinking, larger models. |
| |
| ▲ | mvdtnz an hour ago | parent [-] | | So where are these mythical savings coming from? You're saying they have spent more per user therefore can charge each user less or something? I'm not following. | | |
| ▲ | spacebanana7 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The (optimistic?) take is that xAI is genuinely better at building datacenters at scale than anyone else, and the freedom to use Nat Gas as the primary energy source allows them to have lower marginal costs. The (pessimistic?) take is that they have loads of idle GPUs and want to get some revenue out of them rather than none. Compare this to OpenAI/Anthropic where every token used by a consumer has to compete with enterprise spenders, and there’s not enough to go around for everyone. | |
| ▲ | collinmcnulty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s basically a clearance sale, is the theory. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | parsimo2010 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| “We lose money on every rack, but we make up for it in volume!” - Elon Musk, probably |
|
| ▲ | re-thc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| More like they have a less focus on margins and more on cost recovery. |
| |
| ▲ | gabriel-uribe an hour ago | parent [-] | | Definitely. They had insanely low rates on TTS up until a month or two ago ($4.20/1M) for example, which they only recently started increasing. As their models get more competitive I'm sure prices will catch up. |
|
