Managed Spark. That is still what they are, all the other nonsense aside.

Spark is such a headache to run that people would rather pay Databricks to do it for them. They also have some secret sauce like Photon (C++ version of the Spark engine) and the new RT Lakehouse warehouses (10x or so speed up on read-only work flows in my experience) as well as good proprietary optimization features like Liquid Clustering that keep your Parquet files nicely sized and indexed. Their AI features are terrible and I can't tell you how many Zoom calls I've joined to rescue people from wild goose chases their model took them on.

Their main competitor is Snowflake, which imo has nicer UI/UX and snappier SQL execution, but the trade off is that Snowflake has a bit more lock-in, whereas Databricks is easier to kind of just build on top of your existing infrastructure. Snowflake's AI features are also much better in my experience.

>I feel like we might have some a tech theranos on our hands here.

Based on what I've seen some customers paying them, they are absolutely making heaps of money. A "small" SQL warehouse cluster is $8.40 an hour (~$73k a year if you leave it on) and the default size of X-Large is $56 an hour or $490k a year. It goes up to 5X-Large at $729 an hour or $6.3M a year. So they do absolutely let people with horribly optimized data just pay their way out of dealing with the problem, which is something I've seen multiple times.