710
submitted 3 weeks ago by Gsus4@mander.xyz to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

We are still in the Uber-subsidized part of the relationship.

It's not comparable, the costs for Uber are fixed development costs which decrease per customer with more customers. AI is strictly more expensive the more users there are since the cost is per use. The financial outlook for the industry is very bad, it will probably never be profitable except maybe in some extremely niche situations.

[-] Glemek@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

I don't think they mean uber the company, I think they meant uber as in over or very.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

I think they mean the company since they're the most famous example of subsidising the product to gain market share and their name is invoked all the time in discussions of AI economics

[-] Miaou@jlai.lu 1 points 3 weeks ago

Uber fares are also per use..?

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah, but they never really systematically subsidised fares as such, except for some one-off bonuses to attract divers and stuff like that, in the sense that they didn't systematically pay drivers more than people were paying per ride. They subsidised it in the sense that the cut they took didn't cover their development costs, servers, marketing, etc. But those costs don't increase linearly per customer and they also plateau as the software stack matures, so there's a path to just raising prices and getting to profit, and each additional customer brought them closer to profit even while the subsidies existed.

OpenAI and Anthropic are paying something like 10x the amount for inference as they get from subscriptions, let alone free usage and training costs. So each new customer is taking them further from being profitable. And if they jacked up the prices 10x, so that the basic subscriptions were a few hundred and the pro ones a few thousand a month, they would still be in the position that Uber was when they were doing the subsidies for their infrastructure. I think it's fairly obvious that they wouldn't be acquiring customers very quickly at those prices.

this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
710 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56237 readers
1930 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS