417
ChatGPT's market share slips below 50% for first time (techcrunch.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 167 points 2 months ago (4 children)

It's a weird business where everyone is offering an environmentally unsupportable service at below cost, hoping to outlive the competition.

Market share of a negative profit market.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 65 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It worked for netflix and the steaming services. Now terrestrial (cable) is dead and adsupported streaming tiers have returned lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 51 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's how every tech company that "disrupts" a market or indistry works. Uber started of burning shit tons of cash operating at a loss till it replaced enough Taxi services then jacked up the prices.

    The problem with AI is that they cannot increase the prices enough to be profitable. The AI companies are waiting for future hardware tech that will be energy efficient enough to make AI profitable before they run out of capital to burn.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago

    The problem with AI is that they cannot increase the prices enough to be profitable.

    I saw something about the SpaceX IPO that said for it to be justified at that price, everyone on earth with some sort of money (they defined it as earning at least $14,000/year) had to become an xAI consumer and spend $28,000/year. Seems reasonable /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I was thinking about that, but it did make governments move to digital programming (eg BBC, NPO), which they likely wouldn't have done if it wasn't for Netflix. I think it also improved the internet speeds here in NL significantly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    That's not correct - the BBC announced iPlayer in 2003, tested 2004 onwards and finally launched in 2007 after being delayed by lobbying. The iPlayer was held back from full launch due to concerns from commercial competitors - in particular broadband providers lobbied against the iPlayer service because they feared the "pressure" it would put on the broadband infrastructure.

    Netflix launched their streaming service in 2007.

    Netflix did not originate the idea of streaming (nor did the BBC to be clear), much like Apple didn't originate the smart phone. Netfiix did however do it better than it's competitors, particularly the incumbents in the commercial sector.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I remember iPlayer in 2007: it was a mess, using DRM and P2P, requiring a full download before watching it. I wouldn't call that a streaming service at all. Shows had to be watched within a week of broadcasting.

    I welcome feedback but starting a comment with 'thats not correct' and then blatantly being incorrect is just some ol' bullshit.

    I never mentioned that either of the companies originated the idea of streaming. I only posited that Netflix pushed governments (in this case the Dutch and UK) to move to digital programming.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    They did a better job by offering an unsustainable variety of programming from all the studios in one place at the same time. All of the competitors at the time only offered financially viable services.

    I believe in ai now because I looked at the Netflix balance sheet and thought. “There is NO WAY they could become profitable they are spending wayyy to much money and have way to much debt. It’s financially impossible to get out of this hole”

    I understand how it worked and how it could not have. There are a lot of ways this could fail on AI but there are some real ways forward. AI has a similar application reach as the internet. It’s world changing.

    I see why meta and google are going in hard. They lived though the rise and fall of blockbuster. They saw Sony release 3 different steaming services before after and during Netflix. This is the disruption for the current generation of tech and their revenue model.

    Someone is going to ‘Win’ AI and a lot of others will loose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    One company may win, but we all will lose for sure. Specially investors, the math doesn't add up even if revenue breaks even.

    It will be even more funny if these companies are declared financially bankrupt and the profitable parts are sold separately and the non profitable will stay with share holders.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I have never seen that happen. I have only seen companies get bailed out. It’s been decades since a giant insolvent company was split apart and sold for pennies on the dollar. They just enough money to buy financially solvent competition

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    I don't mean giant companies exclusively, I mean all of them. If the owners have a decent accountant and lawyer, the company will bankrupt and the owners will end up richer.

    And I don't mean selling the company on pennies, I mean hollowing the company then letting it turn into dust.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent