It's such a small country and an even smaller amount are coming to the U.S. that this would have no material impact. Strange to see them there, but not Argentina (in much worse financial situation).

True, but Google's been making them for 10 years, which subjectively feels like a long time in tech.

Look at all the companies that have 'burned cash' with no viable path to profitability over the last 20 years. The good ones outlive that criticism, easily. Think Uber, etc. They clearly see a path to profitability and they have plenty of room to experiment here with what works. With new partnerships and dependencies, they won't run out of cash for a long time.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but I feel like OpenAI raised far more money than those companies, burned through it far quicker and has much more competition with a much shakier value proposition.

They definitely have a strong consumer brand so it’s not like they’re going to disappear, but I understand the bear case.

Sam A is pretty well connected and knows the game well. No doubt there will be some risks where the whole thing goes right down to zero, but I personally wouldn't bet against them.

I'm sure Sam A will be fine, an IPO will probably see him ride off into the sunset with billions.

The average public investor buying pre-IPO shares, though, is a different story.

I wouldn't bet against Sam Altman personally, but that's very different from betting on OpenAI.

I would not be convinced they outlive the criticism.

I think it's highly likely in the next 10 years companies like Spotify and Uber will no longer exist. They're fundamentally antogonistic to their capital.

Spotify is a profitable business now though right? Sure it doesn’t make huge profits due to paying out about 70% to larks but it’s finally profitable

Yes, barely, and after cutting revenue per stream to 1/4th of what it was. Many artists make negative money on Spotify, because you have to pay them to put your music on there. And then if Spotify thinks bots are listening to your streams, you have to pay them more.

It's the same problem for Uber. Many Uber drivers make a negative wage. They don't know it, because nobody is going to tell them, but if you do the math, depending on your location, vehicle, and rates, you make a negative wage. Due to gas cost, tolls, maintenance, etc.

The problem here is that the uber drivers and artists are the only thing that makes the platform worth using. Spotify might think their capital is technology. That's because they're stupid. No, their capital is the library of music artists put on there.

If you continue to just antagonize and destroy your own capital that you're using to make money, your business will be blow up.

I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that Spotify “cut” the revenue per stream. Spotify doesn’t have a fixed revenue per stream, payouts are dynamic and based on how much revenue it made and how many streams there are in total. Also Spotify gives something like 80% of its revenue to the music industry.

It’s essentially a pie that gets divided up amongst all artists by steam count. If your friend’s garage band are angry that they only get 0.001 cents per stream then they should be angry at Spotify listeners for streaming too much Taylor Swift!!!

Furthermore to pay the artists Spotify has to pay the labels and of course they take a giant cut. This trope of Spotify being an evil corporation is unfair

I don't think Spotify is evil, but I do think their business model doesn't make sense.

I mean, it sounds great. Pay 10-15 bucks a month and listen to all the music you want, whenever you want. What an amazing business idea!

But has anyone stepped back and asked if this is actually possible? Because when your artists are getting paid crumbs I don't see how this system continues.

100% agree. I think the subscription should be more like $30/$40 per month based on the value you get but of course users would never pay that!

So I wonder if there would ever be a middle ground between what artists would accept and what users would pay?

The reason for not keeping them too much longer than a few years is that at the end of that timespan you can purchase GPUs with > 2x performance, but for the same amount of power. At some point, even though the fleet has been depreciated, they become too expensive to operate vs. what is on the market.

Not a great comparison, but agree that it just takes passing some goofy interviews. That guy lied his way through all of his interviews.

Isn't that the case with every hobby?

The majority of data is rarely accessed after the first week. However, that data represents 99% of the costs. If storing data is not your primary business, then why keep it around? This is what most of the large companies are realizing now that growth is slowing down.

It’s designed for that level of durability, but it’s only as good as a single change or correlated set of hardware failures that can quickly change the theoretical durability model. Or even corrupting data is possible too.

You're totally correct, but these products also need to be specifically designed against these failure cases (i.e. it's more than just MTTR + MTTF == durability). You (of course) can't just run deployments without validating that the durability property is satisfied throughout the change.

Yep! There’s a lot of checksum verification, carefully orchestrated deployments, hardware diversity, erasure code selection, the list goes on and on. I help run a multi-exabyte storage system - I’ve seen a few things.

This is true. While I prefer non-SaaS solutions generally, S3 is something that’s hard to cost effectively replace. I can setup an AWS account, create an S3 bucket, and have a system that can then persist at least one copy of my data to at least two data centers each within a goal of 1 second. And then layer cross-region replication if I need.

It’s by no means impossible to do that yourself, but it costs a lot more in time and upfront expense.

It's integrated into X, but they are separate companies.