[dylan604]

> ignoring R&D (which is definitely a huge cost) they run at a profit.

how can you say such a hand wavy comment with a straight face? you can't just ignore a huge cost for a company and suddenly they are profitable. that's Enron level moronic. without constant R&D, the company gets beat by competitors that continue R&D. the product is not "good enough" to not continue improving.

if i ignored my major costs in my finances, i could retire, but i can't go to the grocery store and walk out with a basket of food while telling them that i'm ignoring this major cost in my life.

get real

[infecto]

I don’t know why so many take these discussion with such a high emotional level. Has the ability to constructively discuss a topic been lost? I know you usually respond with high emotion and brash but at least try to be constructive.

It’s a valid point and that’s the biggest question when it comes to the medium to long term business plan. Those R&D costs are an important part of it. My point is that since runtime is profitable there is a lot more runway to figure out how to tweak R&D spend in such a way that it becomes a viable business for the long term.

There are a lot of questions that they need to answer to get to pure profitability but they are also the fastest growing company on a MAU number in history with a product that you can see has a chance at become profitable from all sides. They may fail or become sidelined but the hyperbole and lack of critical discussion here is disappointing.

[dylan604]

I like how when your illogical notion is challenged, you respond by saying the challenger is being emotional.

There is no point in saying that an AI company can just ignore its R&D. There is no company without the R&D. Because of that, any conversation pretending it doesn't exist is pointless. There is no constructive conversation with that as the premise.

[infecto]

You’re arguing against a point I’m not making. I’m not saying R&D isn’t necessary or that it “doesn’t exist”, I’m saying that operationally, the service itself runs at a profit before accounting for R&D. That matters because it means they have a viable revenue engine that could, in theory, fund a sustainable R&D budget if they adjusted spend.

That’s a very different conversation than “pretend R&D doesn’t matter.” No one is suggesting they stop building; the question is whether they can align the burn rate with the revenue base over time. Companies make those tradeoffs constantly when maturing from heavy investment to profitability.

And yes, you are being emotional, not because I disagree with you, but because your language is inflammatory and brutish. It’s hard to have a constructive discussion when every response is dialed to 11. Misframing the premise as “ignoring a huge cost” isn’t debate, it’s a straw man, and it sidesteps the real question of whether the underlying business model works once R&D is right-sized.

Would love to have a real critical discussion on why you disagree but please leave the bad language out of it. It’s boring and I know it’s your typical route in these types of discussions but at least have a valid retort.

[amanaplanacanal]

I have no horse in this race, but... Hasn't a huge amount of R&D already been spent? You can't retroactively make that go away.

[infecto]

Correct, past R&D spend is already sunk and can’t be undone. But that’s why it’s useful to separate sunk costs from future operating costs when evaluating viability.

The relevant question is whether the ongoing revenue from the existing product is strong enough to support a sustainable level of R&D going forward. If your runtime margins are healthy, you have options: scale back R&D burn, focus on incremental improvements, or use the profits to fund more ambitious projects.