Their new Broadcom chips seem cool, and they had a nice model release with Astra. But, that doesn't mean they've solved the profitability question during an era of rapidfire open-weight model releases, extreme memory shortages, and intense political pushback.
I think there are few moats in the engineering use case, and a single new model can absolutely drive compute demand.
Anyway, any evidence for "prices are moving inference to highly profitable" because they are still selling $20 for $1 with their subscriptions.
OpenAI and Anthropic are barely profitable on a "unit" basis when ignoring the costs of marketing and other COSS expenses. They're definitely not profitable on an EBITDA or GAAP basis or they'd already have IPO'd.
I hate to wave the Wikipedian protester sign, but...
IE, please provide a citation for the claim.
The point is that openAI is currently messaging against IPO in 2026. That is news by itself
Why is this even a "would say" kind of thing. Surely AGI - they've achieved it three times now, right? - has lead to a datacenter full of PhDs who will perfectly time the IPO.
The general wealth distribution has shifted to the point that they do not need access to public funds, and frankly, if they can't find private funds for their needs, it is a huge red flag that they would just be dumping on the public.
unless the public is clueless
Isn’t one of the reasons to go public to raise capital? They seemed to be doing that just fine without the weight of the open market with extremely profitable companies like Nvidia funneling billions of dollars in.
We've seen multiple times how "Wall street" is an exit for insiders, with retail investors left holding the bag.
edit: which I doubt btw. investors are going to want to dump the bags very soon
Either OpenAI fails, and goes nowhere.
Or it succeeds, in which case IPOing will be a quaint aspect of history.
People really aren't following through on what it means for any of these companies to succeed.