Redpoint Ventures' Erica Brescia states the current investment thesis for AI application-layer companies: disregard margins entirely for now. The focus should be on aggressive growth, raising capital, and building a brand to be seen as the category winner, even if the product is still early and unprofitable. This is a "play to win" strategy.
Established SaaS firms avoid AI-native products because they operate at lower gross margins (e.g., 40%) compared to traditional software (80%+). This parallels brick-and-mortar retail's fatal hesitation with e-commerce, creating an opportunity for AI-native startups to capture the market by embracing different unit economics.
As startups build on commoditized AI platforms like GPT, product differentiation becomes less of a moat. Success now hinges on cracking growth faster than rivals. The new competitive advantages are proprietary data for training models and the deep domain expertise required to find unique growth levers.
Redpoint Ventures' Erica Brescia describes a shift in their investment thesis for the AI era. They are now more likely to back young, "high-velocity" founders who "run through walls to win" over those with traditional domain expertise. Sheer speed, storytelling, and determination are becoming more critical selection criteria.
Rabois argues that unlike foundational model or infrastructure plays, AI application startups shouldn't need to burn cash on compute. He believes they should be able to pass these costs through to customers and demonstrate healthy unit economics immediately.
For a true AI-native product, extremely high margins might indicate it isn't using enough AI, as inference has real costs. Founders should price for adoption, believing model costs will fall, and plan to build strong margins later through sophisticated, usage-based pricing tiers rather than optimizing prematurely.
For venture capitalists investing in AI, the primary success indicator is massive Total Addressable Market (TAM) expansion. Traditional concerns like entry price become secondary when a company is fundamentally redefining its market size. Without this expansion, the investment is not worthwhile in the current AI landscape.
As AI enables founders to build products in a week for under $500, the need for traditional seed capital for engineering will diminish. The bottleneck—and therefore the need for capital—will shift to winning the intense battle for user attention. VCs will fund marketing war chests instead of just development.
Unlike SaaS, where high gross margins are key, an AI company with very high margins likely isn't seeing significant use of its core AI features. Low margins signal that customers are actively using compute-intensive products, a positive early indicator.
Many AI startups prioritize growth, leading to unsustainable gross margins (below 15%) due to high compute costs. This is a ticking time bomb. Eventually, these companies must undertake a costly, time-consuming re-architecture to optimize for cost and build a viable business.
Conventional venture capital wisdom of 'winner-take-all' may not apply to AI applications. The market is expanding so rapidly that it can sustain multiple, fast-growing, highly valuable companies, each capturing a significant niche. For VCs, this means huge returns don't necessarily require backing a monopoly.