Anthropic IPO (ipo.anthropic.com)

239 pointsby josephljohnston3 hours ago273 comments

brainless 2 hours ago

There is a lot of value from LLMs but it is something that I can switch easily. Yes, some frontier models are much better but users can still chose to use cheaper models for most of the work. In fact most applications, through which people will interact with LLMs anyway, will not need frontier models unless they offer "chat with AI". Anything that solves specific problems (even multiple problems) does not need frontier LLMs.

Anthropic and OpenAI will have to become more of the end user application stack. Files, calendars, emails, photos, and much more have to pass through them for them to keep making money. Else they cannot make money like the way they have been in this early era of LLMs.

fooqux 2 hours ago

It feels like people are still trying to bet on the horse that will achieve gAI.

mark_undoio 2 hours ago

I'm fascinated by exactly how an investment in the company that first reaches AGI (or whatever we decide to call it) might pay off... It feels like the stocks would absolutely be worth owning in the immediate term because they'd be hot property at the point where people realise it's happening.

The thing that I'm less clear on is, if and when they achieve some kind of recursive improvement exponential growth thingy, isn't that going to heavily disrupt the entire economy / stock market? In that environment, would Anthropic's stocks really be a good bet, given they have to operate within the economy?

piva00 2 hours ago

> The thing that I'm less clear on is, if and when they achieve some kind of recursive improvement exponential growth thingy, isn't that going to heavily disrupt the entire economy / stock market? In that environment, would Anthropic's stocks really be a good bet, given they have to operate within the economy?

That's a long-term problem to be dealt with later, greed dictates to pursue the former as long as the music is playing and everyone is dancing. Similar to 2007-2008 when it was clear that things were breaking but the incentives were to play the game for as long as possible before it imploded.

mark_undoio 2 hours ago

It's clearer to me why this works for generic investors than for the AI companies themselves - unless their plan is just for key employees to cash out and live on a private moon just before Consequences arrive.

sandworm101 an hour ago

>> that first reaches AGI (or whatever we decide to call it) might pay off

It is a myth. They are chasing science fiction. They either dream of an omniscient overseer who will take control of society and nominate its shareholders-parents into the governing elite, or they envision a chatbot that will solve every problem, again turning shareholders into the power brokers. They forget that nobody will ever be allowed to "win capitalism" and take over the planet. Companies have are torn down for far far less. Every AI model is data, ones and zeros. It therefore can be copied/shared/leaked. Intellectual Property law is not a ladder for assent to lordship. It can and will be rewritten or outright ignored rather than allow capitalism to collapse.

QuadmasterXLII 7 minutes ago

“Yes, the planet got destroyed, but for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”

locknitpicker an hour ago

> It feels like people are still trying to bet on the horse that will achieve gAI.

I think that at this point gAI is just a marketing blurb, and the actual race is to dominate current practical applications involving basic RAG and ReAct loops. This can go from anything between software development, business intelligence, and market research. A company whose top brass can use a team of agents to do what nowadays they assign to mid- and top-level management is an executive with tighter control over the whole business process. For this you don't need gAI.

sensanaty 39 minutes ago

I've noticed they've actually stopped harping on about this AGI nonsense, I suppose because no one was buying it to begin with and they themselves didn't really have any idea wtf they were talking about when talking about "AGI". Now it's all about a bajillion agents running autonomously or whatever

mxschumacher 2 hours ago

a big move into end-user software would mean that they have to compete heavily with their own largest customers. The economics of offering SaaS are also under meaningful pressure and don't warrant anywhere near the valuation that is being suggested

abirch 2 hours ago

End-user software is going to be under a lot of pressure. If you're Microsoft, Apple, or Google: you can easily copy products or integrate ideas into their platform. I see companies like Adobe, Salesforce, and Oracle having to downsize significantly to stay profitable. Having said that, my in-laws still pay for an AOL email so I don't think their cashflow is going to zero soon.

mxschumacher 2 hours ago

Adobe seems to be in a tough spot, because so much of the lock-in is client side, I think Salesforce is fairly well protected, it's just so impossibly difficult to remove once a company has fully adopted it. Similar to the staying power of the ERPs of Oracle and SAP.

numlock86 2 hours ago

It's the same really. There have always been alternatives that can work with Adobe's various file formats. Even more aren't going to change much, at least for their enterprise key customers. This is not only the case for Adobe, but many others as well, e.g. MS office is still a thing these days, and so are things like 3Ds Max or Maya, albeit having many compatible cheaper or even free alternatives. It's not so much about features, pricing or even stability. It's about customer support. Do I want to ask an LLM and test my luck or write a GitHub issue and cross my fingers that someone will read it within the next weeks? No, I will pick up my phone or write a mail and get a response within hours if not minutes.

tonyedgecombe an hour ago

The risk for Adobe isn’t that we replace their software with some AI generated alternative. It’s that we bypass that class of software altogether and have an AI do the work.

erwincoumans an hour ago

I ask my llm to write custom software and love the freedom to customize it to my needs. Today I do a presentation on Ubuntu with a new "Presenter" app that works offline, runs 100% in CUDA on GPU and streams videos, starts in 2 seconds, lets me demo live robotics policies in 3D simulations and Opus 5.5 wrote it yesterday. This may sound very unusual, but I think it will be common in the future: moats disappear one by one.

lukan an hour ago

"There have always been alternatives that can work with Adobe's various file formats. "

And yet me and quite some others still yearn for a flash alternative. There never was one.

diydsp 22 minutes ago

Interesting point that challenges the limits of LLMs!

Any of us could vibe code flash now. How to coordinate it as a dev ecosystem of designers and users?

Does it make sense for everyone to JITVibe presentation apps like the person above? Maybe we'll evolve to branding.

abirch an hour ago

I would say that Apple's Create Studio can move toward feature parity faster with Adobe. My point if you're not a platform provider it's going to be harder to make a profit.

Forgeties79 an hour ago

The big problem is Photoshop. I have no love for Adobe, I proudly moved my department off of all Adobe products a few years ago. I am a big fan of open source solutions and I am always impressed at what the GIMP team (and some others) have accomplished.

But…

Photoshop is king. Everything else is behind by a solid decade. If you’re a professional the $40 a month or whatever it is now means nothing to you as well. It has the professionals are all on it, and because the price isn’t astronomical, that’s what everyone else uses who needs to use that kind of program more than once in a blue moon.

Premier? Replaceable. Lightroom? Pretty replaceable though still somewhat ahead. Photoshop? There’s only one Photoshop. And as much as I’m loathe to give Adobe any credit, it’s the best by a mile. There are too many essential features in QoL things that other programs are missing.

Luckily my department doesn’t need it, but if we did, we would simply have to accept Photoshop.

abirch an hour ago

AI is pretty amazing for migrating. source: I'm using Claude to replace a large Tableau ecosystem. What would have taken years is now taking months.

brazukadev an hour ago

> If you're Microsoft, Apple, or Google: you can easily copy products or integrate ideas into their platform

This argument doesn't hold water. Google tried like no one else to have a chat app and it failed miserably more than a handful of times. Same for social networks.

abirch an hour ago

Sorry, I was referring to "end-user software" which in my mind is something that people pay for directly.

wiether 35 minutes ago

Like Discord?

mono442 33 minutes ago

Adobe creative suite is $70/m. From most businesses perspective it's not something worth looking for cheaper alternatives and the alternatives has existed for a long time now.

grahamlee 2 hours ago

now imagine that said customer/competitors have been uploading/generating their source code, problem reports, marketing collateral, and other IP _to the LLM company_ for the last few years.

mattbrewsbytes an hour ago

The biggest moat with applications like MS Office is compatibility. Sharing a slide deck or spreadsheet with others is a simple decision, you know they have it or have software that can read/write it.

I don't get the need to have Anthropic build their custom versions of MS Office apps, I can tell Claude to generate a word doc from a wiki page and it does a pretty damn good job. Anthropic's statistical median level of software that they had Claude create isn't going to replace Office apps to the point where companies cancel/stop renewing their MS Office subscriptions/licenses.

The other element is trust. Do end users trust their data in Anthropic's systems? A lot of people get creeped out when they search for content from one device in their household and then nearly instantaneously they start seeing ads from other devices on the same topic. How creepy will AI get if it starts consuming all your docs, spreadsheets, personal finance info, emails, etc.?

boringg an hour ago

I beg to differ I already am stopping using MS office recently but that's mainly because I really dislike how they lock up the apps if your late on your annual payment. It's a grating value capture model. I'm sure I will have to get back to it at some point but in the meantime google is providing great optionality and I don't have a concern that the software stack has glaring security concerns.

On the trust thing - I don't trust anthropic and I don't think MS has been a great steward over the years either.

steveBK123 an hour ago

The moat of backwards compatibility and plugins is why MS Office has survived decades of competitors without any appreciable loss of market share.

It's hard to see Anthropic replacing it, and even if so - why bother, the revenue is miniscule. They need 100 MS Offices for the compute contracts to pencil out.

arbll 2 hours ago

This is the same argument we have heard many times with SaaS that would presumably get replaced by open source equivalents. In practice it does not happen because there is a lot of value in having someone else deal with a problem.

whilenot-dev 2 hours ago

That "someone else" is just shifting from a single open source maintainer to an LLM.

SXX 42 minutes ago

SaaS have vendor lock-in, they have your data hostage and whar importantly your habits: other software never gonna be 100% the same.

Changing LLM backend on other hand takes 2 seconds.

And it's not all or nothing: you can just keep anthropic $20 plan for planning and do 99% code generation with chinese model.

kshri24 2 hours ago

True. We will end up getting more Google alternatives. Nothing beyond that for now at least.

elorant 2 hours ago

Easily in the context of the corporate world is to pay for something, that something gets installed and then just works, and if it doesn’t work there’s always someone you can call 24/7 to come and fix it. I don’t see how this is possible with open models.

jansan 2 hours ago

Isn't that exactly how Linux companies are making money?

dgellow 2 hours ago

You pay a service provider, who manages the open models… there is absolutely nothing special about it. The hardware can be something you own. Or you rent. Or you just pay the service provider to access the open model apis. Lots of options here, it’s not different from pretty much any other software service in the corporate world

mxschumacher 2 hours ago

the answer is to use a gateway that all the prompts go through. There are many proprietary and open source solutions for this. You get the benefit of making it trivial to switch between proprietary providers in case you are unhappy with the performance or squeezed on price. The AI Gateways put cap on LLM providers' margin upside.

Additionally, the gateway allows for caching, additional security checks, centralized monitoring. I think most corporations have a multi-provider setup anyway.

steve1977 2 hours ago

Good luck in calling Anthropic support...

gambiting an hour ago

What do you mean? We use Bedrock at our company and I can switch to literally any model, including the open ones, by just typing /model and picking it, even including inside Claude Code. It's ridiculously easy to switch, and imho GLM 5.3 is good enough for 99% of my daily tasks already.

diegof79 an hour ago

Yes, they know that. That’s why Claude is becoming a platform like Google Workspace.

They need to leverage Claude Code in the software industry to position themselves as the go-to platform for businesses.

Meanwhile, Google and Microsoft, which already dominate that area, seem to be dormant.

TacticalCoder an hour ago

> Meanwhile, Google and Microsoft, which already dominate that area, seem to be dormant.

Google owns 15% of Anthropic I think.

And Google offers Argon 4 to paying Workspace and Google One customers now. How's what was the number 1 model on nearly every single bench a few weeks ago being "dormant"?

I know people all in in the Google ecosystem (getting credits from Android phones they buy etc.) who only swear by the Google models and who are now using Argon 4: I asked them and a few days ago they had access (but they were already using other Google models before that).

Doesn't GMail have billions account by now?

I'd tend to say with billions of users on GMail and a model like Argon and 15% of the Anthropic shares, Google is not where you think it is.

ojosilva 26 minutes ago

Yes, that's the direction I've been witnessing for Claude too. But it's a short to middle-term strategy IMO, by the time companies are ready to drop all these apps they will need something else entirely, not Claude's slides or spreadsheets or Salesforce.

The fact that Frontier AI can become Google Workspace at a flip of a switch is what is crazy valuable. Anthropic and OpenAI can enter and disrupt any market, especially software, faster than any company ever could, because users want the flow to start and end in their chat interfaces.

bertmuir 12 minutes ago

I think eventually almost all non-creative software will, essentially, be a wrapper around a session.

This pattern has already happened before, in the translation industry. Someone figured out how to learn from and recall context from ordinary translation work (the "translation memory"). It started as an add-on to Microsoft Word, and matured into a standalone software, that was ultimately a wrapper around a document editor. Then language management systems plugged into that wrapper, hey presto, every translator at your company does the same work they were always doing, and you've produced an entire corpus of quality translations to reuse everywhere.

Now _translate_ that idea over. Every time any human works with an agent on anything, simple heuristics find everything true and reusable, save it to the everything-memory as skills, refences, glossaries.

Anyone does any work, all agents can now that work at that organisation. Self-fine-tuning models everywhere, and it fits into corporate intellectual property expectations.

I have done something like this at a medium-sized listed business.

bunderbunder 16 minutes ago

If Google and Microsoft have gone dormant in this space, I have to think it’s because they haven’t been seeing any ROI, either. Possibly because customers have been so underwhelmed.

I’ve been using Office Copilot more or less since it was released, and the general opinion around the office is that it’s a huge waste of time. The auto-transcripts produce 3 pages of fluff when previously someone would send 3 sentences’ worth of what actually mattered. The auto-drafted documents rarely add anything meaningful beyond what was already in the prompt. The question answering and research tools are only as good as Sharepoint/Confluence/Jira/etc’s pre-existing search feature, and therefore untrustworthy, etc.

What made Anthropic exciting was they had locked onto a use case that reliably generates positive value: coding. Not much else has proven, from a business perspective, to be anything more than an exceptionally buzzworthy money pit.

ModernMech an hour ago

Not only can you switch easily, they all seem to do the same thing, fail in the same ways, make the same bad linguistic choices, write the same code... I think at the end of the day, LLMs are a commodity. They're like a grease, or oil. They're trying all the tricks with branding cute names, version numbers, benchmarks, thinking levels, but it all just seems the same stuff to me: I put in tokens, I get more tokens back, and if I didn't know ahead I wouldn't be able to distinguish if they'd come from Anthropic or OpenAI or wherever. Maybe some people can but I can't.

plaidfuji an hour ago

Switching models is easy as a solo developer. Switching LLM providers as a company is not, once all your employees have it integrated with GitHub, their IDE, etc. I think Anthropic will look a lot more like a cloud provider like AWS or GCP. Same-looking product, very high switching cost that would have to be driven at the CIO-level because of all the integrations that have to be redone, IP concerns etc. And ultimately they are selling compute capacity.

Edit: I should clarify that I don’t think this justifies their valuation. It puts them in competition with much more entrenched players with established customer bases, and who aren’t in massive debt to provide their compute. I’d also like to distinguish between a model provider as someone who provides weights vs a model provider who connects their GPUs and models to your codebase and internal systems - I think the latter is where the sustainable business is.

Incidentally this is why I still feel Google is well-positioned in the long-term AI race. If they can remove their head from their ahh and make a coherent product offering across Workspace, GCP and Gemini, they could become as entrenched as MS.

I would assume AWS is probably the most interested in acquiring Anthropic out of the three major cloud providers.

realusername an hour ago

Switching LLM providers as a company is even easier than a solo developer, most large companies I know are using AWS Bedrock and selecting another model is basically just a checkbox for them

plaidfuji an hour ago

I guess what I’m saying is that means AWS is their provider then

realusername an hour ago

Indeed, and I think AWS is in a perfect position to consolidate the entreprise market rather than Anthropic here, they already have the rest of the server stack so this is just another addition.

fallingbananna 36 minutes ago

As far as I know, our corporate has deals with all of them: Anthropic, OpenAI and GitHub Copilot.

They stroke a great discount deal with all, so different teams/departments have different provider, and those using Copilot are even free to switch between models as they please (although with lower usage limits).

You could make the argument that it's not worth switching SAAS providers for enterprises when the costs were like 10 dollars a month per developer and switchign would require 1 team to work for half a year... but with AI providers it's more like paying 1000 dollars a month per developer vs paying 200 dollars if you strike a good deal with different provider and swtiching costs are more like 4 to 8 hours of work for each developer.

JCW2001 an hour ago

Integrations with Github and IDE are nothing. It's like changing your email software.

plaidfuji an hour ago

When was the last time your company changed email provider?

andruby 31 minutes ago

I think the /s was silent

hypfer an hour ago

> Switching LLM providers as a company is not, once all your employees have it integrated with GitHub, their IDE, etc.

I'm not so sure about this. I guess it depends on how well people did their job there.

Ideally, whatever people built is loosely coupled to that third-party resource, meaning that switching cost will stay low.

After all, it's probably just prompts + an API layer. Unless one micro-optimizes their prompts for claude (which then breaks once a new checkpoint drops, hence is a bad idea regardless), pointing them towards a different API endpoint should be doable.

starfallg 31 minutes ago

Currently we are building agentic systems for various business functions like Legal and Finance. How these models perform in those tasks is paramount, and things like cost per run is only a part of the equation. It can become very subjective, and things like brand recognition comes into play. The cost of a counsel or a VP finance overshadows the savings you get by micro-optimizing for a cheaper model. We tend to use the best-in-breed LLM for the various tasks - mainly Claude and Gemini, and sometimes GPT.

stymaar 27 minutes ago

> How these models perform in those tasks is paramount,

Then you have no choice bit to use your own hosted model because that's the only way you can be sure the model isn't going to be removed or quantized/nerfed behind your back.

If your system can widstand the fluctuations of closed models over time, then it can most likely support switching between multiple providers in the first place.

upmostly an hour ago

What?

Have you used Copilot at a company?

I can literally change my model in 3 seconds.

The moat is as shallow as it gets. Investing in a single LLM provider at the moment would be a mistake.

CharlieDigital 28 minutes ago

I've observed that there are some companies and some folks that are very fanatical about a specific provider. "Only Claude" is very common. "Only GPT" less common, but still see it.

A lot of the non-technical and semi-technical folks are only comfortable using a specific client like the Claude desktop app. A lot of teams wrote skills and eval'd/benchmarked their skills specific to a model family and harness.

The "I can use any model, any harness" or "I only use a meta harness" (Orca, Paseo, Herdr, etc.) crew is relatively small IRL. Most people are still single-session, single platform user mode.

Most orgs have an enterprise contract with a single provider so all of their internal assets are built for the provider. It goes beyond skills, but also the telemetry, enterprise policies, and managed configuration.

sensanaty 42 minutes ago

We have like a dozen different LLM tools available to us and it's as easy as clicking on a dropdown to switch in every single one of them, and we have several thousand employees. Self-hosting with the cheaper OSS models is also becoming more and more attractive for larger orgs.

mikestorrent 27 minutes ago

That's just inference. Claude.ai is a platform that enterprise IT teams connect up to all kinds of other applications, and gets use beyond the claude code CLI. Non-developers get used to this functionality - whether it's their form-building stuff, artifacts, slides/presentations, etc... they're building an offering far beyond just inference. I agree the latter is a commodity now, though companies will compete on privacy options (ZDR, guaranteed confidentiality, etc)

fg137 7 minutes ago

Many large enterprises don't use Claude.ai. All their traffic goes through an internal gateway that routes to Bedrock. In addition, there is a whole ecosystem of LLM related infrastructure/tools where Anthropic barely has any presence.

fg137 8 minutes ago

Similar at my $(dayjob) and can confirm.

grey-area 39 minutes ago

VS code or other ides with multiple providers makes it pretty easy.

Also for larger companies like Amazon the danger is they replace Anthropic completely with self-hosted models.

piva00 37 minutes ago

Working for a 10k+ corporate and we made it pretty easy to switch to any provider, people here can use Anthropic's, OpenAI's, and our own self-hosted open weight models very easily. It's one drop-down or `/` command away to switch between them.

I think other companies are probably doing the same, the moat of a AWS/GCP/Azure is much deeper with how contrived it is to migrate between them even if you abstract as much as possible with something like Kubernetes.

plaidfuji 31 minutes ago

Interesting, I don’t think that’s incredibly common but that’s certainly not good news for them. And also not great for OpenRouter.

neutronicus 29 minutes ago

It’s literally a menu in Copilot.

The model is just some REST endpoint you switch out even in a lot of enterprise setups.

sfblah 10 minutes ago

It’s weird that people don’t seem to get this. LLMs are the most easily switched-out technology I’ve ever used as an engineer. The input is literally just free-form text.

thecopy 22 minutes ago

With some gateway inbetween managing the model responses, MCP and skills (see https://modelcontextprotocol.io/seps/2640-skills-extension) this becomes very easy

jpardoe an hour ago

The frontier is addictive.

simianwords an hour ago

When people want to argue that AI is a commodity, they confuse two concepts

1. switching costs

2. fungibility

I do agree that LLMs have low switching costs. But they are not fungible - each model is unique with different strengths and weaknesses.

I also disagree that they can increase switching costs by moving in application stack.

For instance, oil and electricty are commodiites because they are fungible, not because switching cost is high.

Whereas clothing has low switching cost but not fungible

jstummbillig an hour ago

People seem very unimaginative about the ways in which somebody equipped with a lot of intelligence and compute, and control over both, might make money.

The recent Anthropic push into biomedical research gives a clue.

CodingJeebus 44 minutes ago

This is equally true for how risky it is to build such a business on top of a 3rd party black box. Model nerfing is widely speculated and the only true way to guarantee that the models you're using are stable and consistent is to run your own hardware. Not to mention the recent Navier-Stokes controversy.

The moment you find a money-making formula on top of someone else's black box model, there's nothing stopping them from taking it for themselves.

andai an hour ago

> Anthropic and OpenAI will have to become more of the end user application stack. Files, calendars, emails, photos, and much more have to pass through them for them to keep making money. Else they cannot make money like the way they have been in this early era of LLMs.

...so, Google?

gabucino 44 minutes ago

>something that I can switch easily

something I find even easier is to never pay anything to the creators of the most inhumane, antagonistic skynet-tier chatbot ever

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

small_model 37 minutes ago

Why haven't people switched then? Same could be said about Google search, Facebook, X etc. Claude is the de-facto SWE model now, yes you could use an open model but you would always be wondering if Claude would do better, like using Duck Duck or some other Search engine

jmyeet 37 minutes ago

I believe the models have been effectively commoditized. It's believed by many that the lead of the frontier models over open weight models is only 6-9 months. That was one of the pillars holding up the SpaceX/Anthropic/OpenAI valuations.

The other pillar is hardware but I think that's only going to last a few years at most.

These trillion dollar valuations were based on the idea of "winning" and "owning" AI (IMHO) and the open weight models have killed that outcome. Now it's a rush to cash out before it all comes tumbling back to Earth.

mrdootdoot 36 minutes ago

100% - brace yourselves for enshittificarion.

I’ll always remember the good times.

But you’re wrong ser about small or cheaper models. Choosing to work or not having a choice to work with cheaper models means you work slower and more methodically because you have to plan out the work and size it to fit. This has huge implications on the value of the work you can produce as an employee or solo developer, and it’s a skill working with these SOTA models - there is specific crafting that must be done to be effective with each and their capabilities.

You will see the old eyeball real estate game, forcing more of your experience into their apps and platform so you can see ads or “new slop features”. You will see the SOTA models more closely guarded in an effort to bait you into that platform, and yes, you will see them doing things they never should be doing, moving towards an open AI like model where it can order a pizza, where monetization it was always important, but is now the golden rule, before all else.

I hope open models can at least give me opus 4.8 experience soon, I can work with that. But nothing out there today can do it and that terrifies me.

freakynit an hour ago

A few important points from the linked documents:

1. Price range: $70–78 with midpoint at around $74.00

2. Gross deal size: $85.3B (IPO + $26B private placement)

3. Implied market cap: ~$968B (at $74, 13.09B shares)

4. Q3'26 revenue: $17.0B (+1,127% YoY)

5. Run-rate revenue: ~$81B (as of Oct 2026)

6. Compute commitments: $900.9B (through 2045)

7. Ticker: ANT (Nasdaq)

8. Customers with ≥$100K, ≥$1M and ≥$10M TTM revenue: 11,900+, 1,900+ and ~250.

9. Customers under $100K: ~40 million

10. Fortune 500 penetration: over 50%

11. Global 2000 penetration: over 30%

narmiouh an hour ago

What about costs?

smugglerFlynn an hour ago

“It ain’t that kind of movie, kid”

tclancy an hour ago

They make it up on volume.

baxtr 25 minutes ago

See 6.

jimbokun an hour ago

Here's what I found most interesting in the Customer Stories:

> 4.3 Non-billable hours recaptured per lawyer weekly, in an independent study of 31 firms

-Legora

> 24→5 days Working days for new feature time to market

-Rakuten

> 2x Quarter over quarter productivity gains (estimated 8.1 million hours annualized)

-Salesforce

The rest are pretty fuzzy/fungible (percentage of employees "using" Claude etc.). But these claims potentially show real, measurable productivity value (assuming they're true and measured accurately).

cromka 43 minutes ago

> (assuming they're true and measured accurately).

Precisely, because TTM doesn't tell the full story about the potential shifts in quality of the work. I don't refer to vibeslop here, to be precise, just the additional followup work required on those features released faster, which always happens but with AI it may or not happen more often.

GodelNumbering 39 minutes ago

> Customers under $100K: ~40 million

All claude code subscribers are classified in this category it seems.

Total customers >1M trailing twelve month revenue: ~2150. I suspect a vast majority of their revenue comes from limited list of customers with >100M revenue.

zahlman 16 minutes ago

Didn't the consensus expect an initial market cap considerably higher than that?

MattCruikshank 7 minutes ago

I imagine that we will settle on using cloud-based frontier models to design workflows, and then select, evaluate, and monitor local-based models for the various roles in those workflows.

I know this is already happening, but my point is that I suspect that we will settle on not using cloud-based frontier models for anything else. They're just too expensive, when they're not subsidized like crazy.

joennlae 2 hours ago

„The IPO process begins with a roadshow starting on November 10th (EST). Subject to regulatory clearance, the final IPO share price is expected to be set on November 18th (EST), and shares are expected to begin publicly trading on November 19th (EST).“

zhivota 2 hours ago

So if share price is only set one day before trading, I guess you just have that day to decide to buy if you can get allocation from your broker? I'd like to try it but I've never bought an IPO before.

lofaszvanitt 2 hours ago

You don't need a broker. Use Saxobank or similar.

kgwgk 2 hours ago

"You don't need a broker. Use some other broker."

ftchd 2 hours ago

It's a "neobroker", get on with the times!

taude 2 hours ago

You commit to your broker before, if you're big enough of a player. They'll mostly have allocated to their biggest clients and such.

Pretty hard to get in on a hot IPO, though, as the shares will go to their favorite clients (those with the most money).

kshacker 2 hours ago

I got lucky in the Reddit ipo. I had decent karma so I got invited for their special insider track. But I had to create a new account via a link shared by Reddit. Got what I asked for.

But otherwise yes it goes as described above.

HolyLampshade an hour ago

To further emphasize this, it is very challenging to get in a pre-auction allocation.

You can submit an order via your broker (depending on the broker and your account) to the auction itself on the exchange once it’s in the quotation phase.

Not that I would advocate for that. Sometimes it’s better to buy in the secondary market once things settle a bit.

boringg an hour ago

Reminder that hot IPOs, in this era, rarely do a great job at getting returns for the investor - its more a mechanism to reward long term private investors, employees and the book runner.

I may be inclined to wait 2 months when the price drops and pick up then.

Not financial advice.

kshacker 2 hours ago

I have tried a couple of IPOs

You indicate your interest. Also start funding the account. So you fund 7000 for 100 shares at 70. Then they announce the price is 75. You must change the order to fit the funds or have extra money. Of course you can opt out or change the quantity anyways. But I think in both the cases I actually went ahead (Reddit and figma), I had to reconfirm the quantity. You can't be away from the network.

origini 2 hours ago

I just 'bought' some through ing-diba, you can set a limit.

y-curious an hour ago

Just echoing what another comment said: it’s rarely a good idea in the long run to buy an IPO. Not financial advice. It’s one of those things where if you have to ask how to do it, you probably aren’t wealthy enough to be speculating at this level.

Would you buy a gaming console for a high price from a company that’s never shipped a gaming console? Maybe, but you’d wait til it’s been reviewed by someone else on YouTube or something.

fblp 2 hours ago

The economics of this are absurd, and Anthropic hasn't been without their controversy; but I use Claude everyday, and they've made tremendous impact on society. I wish them the best for their IPO.

ramon156 37 minutes ago

> they've made tremendous impact on society

Such as?

I can think of a bunch of stuff they released, but none that have impacted the world. I can think of some partly positive impact, which is that my bar for bullshit has to go up because words are cheap now, and so is ""graphics"".

Some other fun impacts they've made is irreversible environmental damage, beautifully detailed in their IPO. Fossil fuel reliance and and water scarcity in the big '26 is probably the most "fuck you" move you could've done, and zero sustainability plans. at least Cloudflare tries to pretend theyre sustainable (and frankly they do invest in green energy).

preisschild 12 minutes ago

The only "tremendous impact on society" I have seen is that people generally outsource thinking completely and get dumber.

Varelion 10 minutes ago

You are expecting them to reach this conclusion without asking claude? Their critical thinking is gone.

TrackerFF 2 hours ago

The way I see it, AI is more comparable to some sort of utility. Like electricity, internet, etc. - and should be priced that way. If we ever get to "true" AGI, and the open source models also get there, what's the moat? Access to compute could be the differentiator.

simianwords an hour ago

This is pretty much false. There's a lot of art and technique that goes into creating a model. A model is also clearly not fungible - it has certain characteristics and behaves a certain way. It is fungible in the same way humans are fungible.

noir_lord an hour ago

> Access to compute could be the differentiator.

Already is the differentiator even with the models we have now which while having differences are mostly swappable for a lot of users/use cases.

For all that the local models have improved (and Qwen 3.8 27b is still impressing me) they aren't what you can run (or would run) if you have an entire data centre stuffed with H200's.

All this does is further widen the divide we already know exists by those with access to resources using them to increase their access to resources and those without getting to watch because there isn't much they can do without resources.

strofocles an hour ago

I was of the same opinion but the main difference is that models get better which I am not sure you have a correspondent in utilities (what would get better?). The barrier of entry in utilities is capital. Here there seems to be more. Why is Grok behind and why is Gemini so ... what's the word? If models progress reach the RSI point there is no parallel to utilities imo.

TiredOfLife an hour ago

Less an utility and more like foodstuff.

You have your boiled potatoes/rice/beans (small local models), steak (Opus 5.5), wagyu (fable)

tim333 an hour ago

There are a lot of things that don't seem to have much moat like anyone can make a search engine, anyone can flip hamburgers but the likes of Google or McDonalds dominate by economies of scale and being better in some ways.

yu3zhou4 2 hours ago

Apparently not every country can participate in this IPO. As of now, if you open the Revolut Anthropic IPO page from Poland, you get:

> Linked page(s) related to Anthropic IPO can only be viewed by persons located in UK, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.

jstanley 2 hours ago

The UK page is effectively empty and just links to https://app.retailbook.com/offers/anthropic-ipo

xnorswap 2 hours ago

And you then have to agree to not share anything in it with anyone outside the UK, including:

> I will not transmit or otherwise send any of the information to which this gateway gives access to any person outside the United Kingdom.

It's extremely hard with modern browsers to ensure that doesn't happen!

dotancohen 2 hours ago

Poles apart.

HolyLampshade an hour ago

Guessing, but probably where the underwriters have brokerage relations or there are favorable capital controls, since it’s a US listing.

I confess I’m about 17 years out of practice in the Polish market, and about 12 years out of touch with how the European industry shakes out on the whole, so I’m not entirely familiar with the legal or business structures.

TacticalCoder 40 minutes ago

I don't know about the IPO specifically but it's only retail that has limitations for some US listings. And custodian banks/brokers offering products to retail.

The biggest one in the EU being the "No KID, no deal" (for funds, derivatives, etc.): no Key Information Document, then cannot be offered to retail.

That is unless retail is an accredited investor (say a letter from a bank saying you have more than 1m EUR in investments): then it can trade/invest in everything.

Or for example if you own a company (say private weath management) that's non-custodian (say you manage your wealth using your own company, and shares of your company are privately owned) and you're considered a professional in the finance world, you can ask your broker to let you trade / invest in basically every single product under the sun.

AFAIK pre-IPO stocks are just as vanilla as regular stocks and do not need the KID notice.

In addition to that Anthropic (in the EU), says you can enter pre-IPO using Revolut, Trade Republic, eToro or using bigger players like Saxo or IBKR.

Dunno why GP doesn't have access to it in Poland.

lifestyleguru an hour ago

lol, simply buy investment apartament for short term rental in Krakoł or Łorsoł. They're safe haven in tumultuous Europe.

boringg an hour ago

I hadn't thought of it from a global perspective - I could see a lot of other country investors jumping at this.

small_model 2 hours ago

I would wait for 2-3 quarters before investing, it will drop and there will likely be lock-ins to contend with. if growth slows then price could tumble fast.

xnx 2 hours ago

So I should short it?

jstanley 2 hours ago

To profit from shorting it you need to not just be right that it is going to go down, but be able to tolerate the volatility in the interim.

rob74 2 hours ago

"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent". That, or the markets may turn out to be right after all...

jstanley 2 hours ago

I always liked "you can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".

alembic_fumes 2 hours ago

So I should straddle it?

edit: To clarify, this is a light-hearted continuation about how essentially any claim about the stock market is enactable in some form. And so even the much of generally well-intentioned advise is in fact a claim that the person should be putting their money on, if they truly believe it. I think only claims like "Nobody knows what's going to happen, it's effectively gambling => stay out of the market" come close to being fully self-consistent, but e.g. advising to not buy because the price comes down, or to not short because of volatility both fail this. Markets are funny.

jstanley 2 hours ago

I didn't claim that it was going to go down though.

My only claim was that to profit from shorting it you need to not just be right that it is going to go down, but be able to tolerate the volatility in the interim.

That's a claim about the stock market, how do you enact it?

Note it is not a claim that volatility is definitely going to be high.

epolanski 2 hours ago

As the late Charlie Munger said about Tesla: I wouldn't own it, I wouldn't short it.

dozerly 2 hours ago

If you have to ask, then you shouldn’t short it.

xnx 2 hours ago

Right. I was trying to emphasize that no one knows what the stock price will do.

ftchd 2 hours ago

That's why there's a stock market

DharmaPolice 2 hours ago

If you view that as an investment then no. If you view it as a minor flutter then maybe. You might believe that Team X will win the next game (maybe at a 60% chance) but unless you're a degenerate gambler you wouldn't bet heavily on that outcome.

dist-epoch an hour ago

Shorting the leading AI company during the AI revolution?

Reminds me when HN was saying NVIDIA is a good short 3 years ago, supposedly it was "in a bubble", because it's stock prices was as if it had 10x the revenue it had in back then. Plot twist: today NVIDIA revenue is 10x the revenue from 2023, so it turns out the stock was priced exactly right back then, because the stock market is forward looking.

small_model 41 minutes ago

I wouldn't short it, it's likely to ruin you similar to what happened to the Tesla shorts. I would hold off to see if their earnings look good then go all in with 100-1 leverage. /s

sensanaty an hour ago

The stock market is barely distinguishable from a casino at this point (and arguably never has been far from gambling), I have 0 confidence that the horrible business that Anthropic is will be reflected accurately in any way

jimbokun an hour ago

Stock market is a casino with positive expected value.

a_bonobo an hour ago

I feel like the saying "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" has applied my entire life; I have yet to see the stock market behave rationally in my lifetime.

small_model 39 minutes ago

Horrible business, hmmm, so it's revenue has grown 10x every year since inception, what is a good business to you if that is deemed 'Horrible'.

sensanaty 32 minutes ago

As we all know revenue is the only thing that matters, and not whether they actually, y'know, turn a single red cent of profit! Btw what all the AI bros are conveniently forgetting to comment on is the massive Q3 slowdowns which they conveniently got to keep out of the news cycles.

jfrbfbreudh 20 minutes ago

massive slowdown = highest revenue quarter? ah ok

asim an hour ago

Looking at this I feel like AWS should spin out of Amazon and go public. Anthropic is a single glorified LLM API. I'm underplaying it but Amazon is a juggernaut and AWS is something that would do well in this market if this is what people want, which is just massive gross margins despite huge infra spend. Just a side note.

pikminguy 15 minutes ago

I've seen suggestions that AWS should separate from the rest of Amazon for years and I've never understood what the upside of that would be for the current stakeholders.

lenerdenator 12 minutes ago

What are the allocations to the C-suite as they stand now? Can the board actually remove corporate officers if need be?

t1234s an hour ago

Is there any insight on why Apple didn't acquire them like 5 years ago?

post-it 42 minutes ago

They didn't have a glimmer of a product 5 years ago.

EcommerceFlow 2 hours ago

Got into the gpt3 beta June 2021 and haven’t looked back, yet it’s incredibly sad we had no avenue to invest in these companies until now.

Why doesn’t a private company stock market exist?

vincnetas 2 hours ago

It exist, but not for poor peaople.

jdcasale an hour ago

This is a little bit cheeky, but basically yeah.

Venture investment is limited to people who can demonstrably afford to take on the level of risk inherent to the market they're investing in. If you can't comfortably afford for the entirety of your venture investment to go to zero, you can't afford to invest in venture.

The exclusion criteria aren't perfect, (accredited investor designation is somewhat coarse-grained) but they're relatively reasonable.

deadbabe an hour ago

A lot of people can afford investments to go to zero. Some are even accredited investors.

The problem is access. You can’t just go to some private market, and by the time you hear about a company it’s too late to get in.

arionmiles 2 hours ago

It's called the Secondary Market

TrackerFF 2 hours ago

Because we - the plebs - are here to provide liquidity to the risk-takers. Hence why they have to IPO.

But for what it is worth, for every successful AI company like Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. - there are probably tenfold more that are valued in the low billions, and will be the first ones to wash away / become worthless if/when the bubble pops.

And lastly, private sales do exist.

hunta2097 an hour ago

Increasingly these days, it seems if a VC backed company was profitable it would never IPO.

Why would they want to share profits?

In these companies, the shares *are* the product. Just like on social media *you* are the product, not the content.

kingstnap 2 hours ago

> Why doesn't a private company stock market exist?

There is something almost ironic about you saying this on a site ran by Y combinator.

muvlon an hour ago

There have been billions and billions invested into Anthropic. It's very evidently possible. Just not for the general public.

jimbokun an hour ago

> Why doesn’t a private company stock market exist?

Because then it would be a public stock market?

tumdum_ 44 minutes ago

Before the 2012 JOBS Act, a US company generally had to register with the SEC if, at its fiscal year-end, it had:

* 500 or more shareholders

* More than $10 million in total assets.

Employees who owned shares counted toward that threshold, which made it particularly relevant to startups that paid employees partly in stock.

The requirement was to become a public *reporting* company, publishing financial statements and other SEC disclosures. It did not require an IPO or a stock-exchange listing, but it encouraged an IPO.

DEDLINE 35 minutes ago

Secondary Markets. There are exotic products in crypto ecosystem that can give you this exposure as well.

maeln 2 hours ago

A lot of ink has been spilled over the projected IPO of the big AI player. But part of me wonder if, in some ways like what happen with SpaceX, it will end up being a nothingburger. A first few crazy days on the market, then whatever, the company is just public now. And with how shares and voting power are attributed, it seems like, just like for spacex, it won't risk changing the power structure of the company.

hubraumhugo 2 hours ago

With SpaceX, now Anthropic, and soon OpenAI, we're seeing 3 of the largest IPOs ever. Will existing institutional investors trim other positions to allocate a lot of capital for these mega listings or is this not a concern?

Doches 2 hours ago

I wouldn't worry too much about OpenAI; they seen to gave deferred their IPO until 'sometime in 2027'. At this point they're basically at the mercy of Anthropic, since if the Anthropic IPO goes poorly or gets pulled then it's going to look to investors (and everyone else, frankly) like OAI will be dead on arrival, too.

Fun times ahead, for sure.

jimbokun an hour ago

I would expect "largest IPOs ever" to continue to occur often in the future, just as we have through out the history of the stock marker.

boringg an hour ago

There is an open question about the ability for the market to absorb these three. Absolutely an open question.

vinyl7 24 minutes ago

Largest IPOs primarily due to inflation

thibsrn 2 hours ago

There is a heavy amount of circular investments in the industry, among competitors. There is a private placement that is made in parallel with the public offering, through $26B of a special stock, according to the S1. They all have a lot to gain from a successful Anthropic public issue. The problem is it blurs the signal, we don't how much is overvaluation that contributes to a bubble.

I don't think there has often been such an intertwined industry before. Usually cartels are made through discreet partnerships at the operational level, this is an interconnection in the background at the financial one.

mxschumacher 2 hours ago

yep, for a comprehensive writeup and analysis of the circular finance topic, have a look at https://hntrbrk.com/investigations/nvidia

Sarkie 2 hours ago

"We have only bits and pieces of information, but what we know for certain is that at some point in the early twenty-first century, all of mankind was united in celebration. We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI."

luqtas 2 hours ago

Dario will re-invest the profit to solve conflict mineral issues all over the world! /j

loceng 2 hours ago

It's shocking to me how narrow minded and short-sighted people are - not extrapolating out correctly to understand infinity tied to abundance:

There will essentially be no profit - as the cost per unit is practically $0, for SI work and then also physical reality construction with adding AI to autonomous robotics.

That technically means everything practically moves towards becoming free for everyone, and then it is a matter of attention with intention honing aim.

But most importantly that is freeing up people's time because systems that can become super highly efficient and super highly monitored-oversight by all, will then allow us to with care-being careful and continuing to pay appropriate attention to core-fundamental systems for survival, stability, harmony, peace, and necessary healing practices-processes - as part of growing pains, raising strong families, etc.

So then yes, Dario's efforts - save for attempts by whatever bad actors think they have a chance agains God and God's will, I hope readers have a relationship and knowing, not simply a belief, of God - will undoubtedly lead to not only stopping blatant slave labour conditions but also subtle incognito slave states that most of the world are under without realizing it being happy slaves working for the status quo machine that's currently attempting to pull us all into a highly destructive and highly profitable WW3 - where money is to be made on the unrest, on the mass murder, mass displacement, on the sales of weapons and defense, on the sales of reconstruction - in hopes of perpetuating forever wars.

Who you give your money - your buying power, your vote to through economic means - and who you give your attention to, your vote through alignment-direction driving processes - is what matters now:

You made such a comment about conflict minerals - but have you even started utilizing AI-SI to begin designing the solution, if so, where's that solution for others to take a look at and hopefully contribute to to improve in a crowdsourced manner-effort?

Looking at your website - you seem like a cool dude (?) - I'd argue you have some blocks that once cleared will help you expand further.

P.S. Set and setting are very important when taking any entheogen(s) - and until you are familiar with what's necessary to hold a safe-healing-fun space, it's best to only partake with a therapy type or highly experienced who is there consciously as a caretaker or in a group ceremonial type setting.

kakacik 42 minutes ago

Yeah yeah yeah somebody needs to read a bit about human history I think. People in power are sociopaths, some common good is a nice PR statement but thats it, its everybody for themselves, and hunger for power and money is bottomless. Power corrupts, inevitably.

I don't know what future brings but what you write it won't, 100% sure. I'd bet system far worse than Orwell could have come up with, and with a twist - it will come from US and not China. Lets see.

nehal3m 2 hours ago

The Second Renaissance was great. I’ve heard a lot of scifi computers speak but the deadpan delivery of humanity’s end in detail always kind of haunted me.

rob74 2 hours ago

Ah yes, The Matrix. It kinda shows that that phrase was written in the "end-of-history" 1990s, before 9/11, Putin, Trump, and China really becoming a global player. Mankind definitely seems further away from being "united in celebration" than it was back then...

dzonga 2 hours ago

growth flatlined between Q2 & Q3.

simianwords an hour ago

Around a few months back, it was very popular to argue that inference was subsidised and that Anthropic is losing a lot of money. Loads of commenters in HN were convinced that this was the case. I've personally lost count of the arguments I've gotten into on this topic.

This filing clearly shows that the training+inference margins are at around 43%.

I also had a bet with some one on this topic and this news pretty much settles it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48473051

I wonder if people will now stop claiming that inference is subsidised? There has to be epistemic hygiene

Proof:

- Revenue (Jan–Sep 2026): $33.242 billion.

- Total compute and infrastructure costs (training + inference): $18.808 billion.

- Revenue after all compute costs: $14.434 billion.

- Margin: ($33.242B − $18.808B) / $33.242B = 43.4%.

- Source: Anthropic's SEC S-1 filing, November 10, 2026, “Operating Expenses — Compute and Infrastructure.”

ac29 an hour ago

Youre talking about gross margin (revenue - cost of goods sold). Operating margin, which includes other operational expenses, is still negative. Net margin, which includes all expenses, is deeply negative.

simianwords an hour ago

When people say Inference is subsidised, they obviously don't talk about the company itself being profitable. To be fair, I included training costs also.

spacechild1 42 minutes ago

> This filing clearly shows that the training+inference margins are at around 43%.

Subscriptions or API pricing? There is no doubt that the subscriptions are heavily subsidized. They just milk it with their API pricing.

And of course we have to assume that they didn't use any dubious accounting tricks to make them look more profitable.

tumdum_ 33 minutes ago

How do you know that?

rvz an hour ago

Another liquidity drainage is happening because of this IPO allocation scam on retail, where the sheep are buying at the IPO price in for the insiders to dump them on their heads.

You are still the exit liquidity.

The time to get in was always pre-IPO in the private markets, not at this stage.

Unless it goes below the IPO price, you are too late.

durmusk an hour ago

Most successful implementation of the (arguably) most important invention in human history. Yet it seems they will struggle to make money. Strange times...

jimbokun an hour ago

I'm pretty sure they can choose to make money anytime they want to.

They are betting that taking on debt and investing more upfront now will lead to even greater profits in the future.

NoidFonsense an hour ago

They can choose to become profitable... temporarily. They need to continue investing in R&D just to keep up with competition

sipsi 2 hours ago

worst day ever

sipsi 2 hours ago

maybe a leather jacket next time

esskay 2 hours ago

Presumably this'll be like the spacex one - high price, instant drop and a load of amateur investors wondering why they just lost a ton of money.

baggachipz 27 minutes ago

Dario: "here, catch!"

The current trend of going public to cash out and dump the problem on retail investors continues, made all the more possible by the government's insistence that retirement accounts almost completely depend on the stock market. Consider it paying your "Claude Tax" from your 401(k).

abijahkaj 2 hours ago

I'm convinced that they are the best right now, but their videos are making me cringe a bit on the whole "culture" thing, feels like a star wars episode

tzal3x 2 hours ago

Here comes the new qwen model announcement.

hmontazeri 39 minutes ago

I don’t know about y’all but this is a high risk investment. Gonna sit this one out…