[energy123]

The problem with fixating on earnings as you're doing is that it's a bad metric for a growth company. COGS is much more important. What you're doing is setting it up so every growth company is terrible until they've matured into a 20 year old company. That's obviously dumb.

[kimixa]

From what I've seen pretty much every company is limited by hardware supply, to the level where's there complaints from current customers about the speed of new customer growth is exceeding their ability to service them properly.

And "growth at all costs" makes sense if there's lock in and you can monetize those "now locked-in users" later - but that doesn't really seem true on the consumer side. It seems pretty trivial to switch out which model and provider on the consumer side.

Any "lock in" has then to be on the model or inference side, and that's still advancing in multiple areas from so many different sources I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying that will also be a "winner takes all" situation either.

My approach is generally "enjoy using it while it's cheap and subsidized, but understand that might not last forever". If it does remain cheap after the subsidies end, great, you can just keep using it. But if it doesn't and you've lost the ability to work without you'll be in for a world of hurt.

[energy123]

Your concern about their business is that demand for their products is growing so stratospherically that they cannot meet that demand easily? I mean that's like an A+ scorecard for any business. Everyone in business would dream of such a scenario. That's called a luxury problem.

[kimixa]

But each new customer is still losing money. As I said, subsidized growth only matters if you can recoup those subsidies afterwards - and that's what I'm not sure will be true.

I think the idea of "all growth is good no matter the cost" has been taken to an extreme.

[energy123]

Losing money based on what? COGS? It really sounds like you're hating on a growth company for not being an airliner.