the exact same arguments were said about uber's business at the start.

Yet, it is now profitable.

The bet is that people realize how valuable these services are, and despite complaining, they still would pay the higher price. This realization would not happen without this initial subsidy from investors.

It isn't too different from drug dealer's first sample free...

▲

thway15269037 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Uber business model wasn't a subscription "for 10 bucks you can travel 900 lightyears a week"

▲

nmfisher 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Last I checked, Uber underperformed the S&P index since its IPO. Even Softbank didn't make a great return on its investment. The growth story was definitely oversold.

Also, Uber was peak ZIRP + COVID, money was cheap and growth was easy. I think the mountain to climb is a lot steeper now.

▲

Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There’s also examples where this didn’t work. Moviepass for example.

Taxis were an established profitable business model and the uber subsidisation wasn’t anywhere near as much as AI subsidies.

▲

0x457 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Moviepass failed because they thought it's going to be like Gym membership - people buy and don't go, but guess what? People love going to movie theaters. On its own its not bad, see AMC Stubs, but AMC owns the theater, they sell you popcorn and soda. OpenAI an Anthropic is closer to AMC than Moviepass.

▲

isubkhankulov 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Disagree with your second paragraph. Uber/lyft subsidized into deep negative margin territory around ~2015 or so. Anthropic (and OpenAI) are subsidizing but not losing money on these consumer plans.

▲

edg5000 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> subsidizing but not losing money

????

▲

Gigachad 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's profitable if you don't count the expenses.

	▲	oblio an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think you're joking but that's Amodei & co are claiming with a straight face.