Despite billions in funding, large AI models face a difficult path to profitability. The immense training cost is undercut by competitors creating similar models for a fraction of the price and, more critically, the ability for others to reverse-engineer and extract the weights from existing models, eroding any competitive moat.

Related Insights

OpenAI, the initial leader in generative AI, is now on the defensive as competitors like Google and Anthropic copy and improve upon its core features. This race demonstrates that being first offers no lasting moat; in fact, it provides a roadmap for followers to surpass the leader, creating a first-mover disadvantage.

AI capabilities offer strong differentiation against human alternatives. However, this is not a sustainable moat against competitors who can use the same AI models. Lasting defensibility still comes from traditional moats like workflow integration and network effects.

The long-held belief that a complex codebase provides a durable competitive advantage is becoming obsolete due to AI. As software becomes easier to replicate, defensibility shifts away from the technology itself and back toward classic business moats like network effects, brand reputation, and deep industry integration.

AI companies operate under the assumption that LLM prices will trend towards zero. This strategic bet means they intentionally de-prioritize heavy investment in cost optimization today, focusing instead on capturing the market and building features, confident that future, cheaper models will solve their margin problems for them.

The enduring moat in the AI stack lies in what is hardest to replicate. Since building foundation models is significantly more difficult than building applications on top of them, the model layer is inherently more defensible and will naturally capture more value over time.

Google's strategy may be to offer its powerful AI models for free or at a significant loss. As a trillion-dollar company, it can sustain these losses indefinitely, forcing smaller competitors like OpenAI into an "endless sea of red ink" until they collapse, thereby securing a market monopoly.

As the current low-cost producer of AI tokens via its custom TPUs, Google's rational strategy is to operate at low or even negative margins. This "sucks the economic oxygen out of the AI ecosystem," making it difficult for capital-dependent competitors to justify their high costs and raise new funding rounds.

Unlike traditional SaaS where high switching costs prevent price wars, the AI market faces a unique threat. The portability of prompts and reliance on interchangeable models could enable rapid commoditization. A price war could be "terrifying" and "brutal" for the entire ecosystem, posing a significant downside risk.

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.

The AI value chain flows from hardware (NVIDIA) to apps, with LLM providers currently capturing most of the margin. The long-term viability of app-layer businesses depends on a competitive model layer. This competition drives down API costs, preventing model providers from having excessive pricing power and allowing apps to build sustainable businesses.