But the OP very clearly did not write anything of that sort. Their claim was:
> This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year.
And that is pretty obviously correct. This deal is Google is buying a service from SpaceX for $920M/month, not investing in SpaceX. And that is revenue for SpaceX. I don't know why you're so insistent it isn't.
The false—or at least highly questionable and unsubstantiated—claim is “Now with this incredible deal, SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules” simply because Google bought $11B of compute from SpaceX. It depends on how much it costs SpaceX to provision and operate the compute, and it depends on what other expenses and revenues they have.
A quick peek at their S-1 filing shows a $5B annual loss last year. Unless SpaceX is selling compute to Google at a 50% margin (unlikely but possible), they’re not going to turn a profit because of this deal. Any profit that does result will be small.
Google’s equity investment and P/E multipliers are irrelevant and have no bearing on SpaceX’s profitability. It should also be noted that when there are no earnings (i.e. net profit), the P/E ratio is NaN. There are no “securitized profits” when there are no profits.
And I have no idea why the OP responded to my response about the math not making sense the way they did. I said “equity investments aren’t revenue”. The response strongly implied that they believed equity investments in a company are revenue. Perhaps I read that wrong, and if so, I owe OP an apology.
If there’s financial engineering going on with SpaceX, it’s not merely because they have customers who are also equity stakeholders in a company. This is as common as the day is long. The top level comment is just a red herring.
Oh, if that was your objection, why did you identify the issue as "But it is not revenue for SpaceX, which is the error OP made"?
> A quick peek at their S-1 filing shows a $5B annual loss last year. Unless SpaceX is selling compute to Google at a 50% margin (unlikely but possible), they’re not going to turn a profit because of this deal. Any profit that does result will be small.
The cost of AI data centers is almost entirely the capex (10% opex, 90% depreciation), so the costs aren't meaningfully affected by whether the DC is idle or operating at full load. They're renting their DCs to Anthropic and Google for a combined $25B/year. The loss of the AI division is about $2.5B/quarter. The math is pretty obvious.
> Google’s equity investment and P/E multipliers are irrelevant and have no bearing on SpaceX’s profitability.
> why did you identify the issue as "But it is not revenue for SpaceX, which is the error OP made"?
It was an error by implication. They responded with something that appeared to disagree when I responded that any profit SpaceX earns under GAAP solely depends on the revenues and expenses, and is not dependent on Google’s investment.
> The cost of AI data centers is almost entirely the capex (10% opex, 90% depreciation)
The operating costs might not vary much, but these boxes are not cheap to power, house, and cool. Not sure about the 10% opex claim, but am happy to see real world numbers.
The company has less cash in the balance sheet, so its market cap decreases. But there are fewer shares, so the share price is the same.
(This allows hypothetical future growth to disproportionately benefit existing shareholders, but does not intrinsically increase stock price.)
In practice, like another poster pointed out, it signals the company’s belief that its own shares are undervalued, so the market usually increases its estimation of value.
You watching all your neighbors sell their beachfront property right before hurricane season: "This isn't really a signal because these transactions are all zero-sum"
I'm a bit confused about what point you're trying to make.
Because you seem to be saying that Anthropic not changing the price of Opus is bad, but then two of your positive examples are Gemini 3.5 Flash (which tripled the 3.1 Flash token prices) and GPT-5.5 (which doubled the GPT-5.4 price, and is slightly more expensive per token than Opus).
Is your argument actually that price hikes are good? That doesn't seem to fit with the general tenor of the message.
You suggest there is only JS tests that do not need a rewrite? This is crazier than I thought…
I took tests as an example. There are so many other things that can go wrong. Rust and Zig standard libraries may have different semantics not picked up by AI. Like one guarantees insertion order of a dictionary and other does not. Differences in how runtimes react to Linux signals, how they do file IO, etc.
If I were a Bun user I would be moving off from bun unless it has excellent test coverage (which I think it does not). During a normal release cycle I offered a small increment of functionality with small number of issues. Here I’ve been offered a complete rewrite, potentially having thousands of issues. I don’t want to be a guinea pig in this experiment.
The HN guidelines explicitly ask you not to make these accusations.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
The cost of power is pretty much irrelevant. The TCO of an AI datacenter is dominated by the capex. Over the lifetime of a DC, the capex will be 10x higher than all the opex combined.
Power matters, but what matters is power availability not cost.
The HN guidelines specifically ask you not to do what you're doing, and say what to do if you have a genuine concern:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
Huh, I didn't recall that. FWIW I have e-mailed them in the past and gotten detected abusers banned, but didn't this time because it's just a suspicion. Didn't realise posting about hunches was against the guidelines, though, that's my mistake.
> This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year.
And that is pretty obviously correct. This deal is Google is buying a service from SpaceX for $920M/month, not investing in SpaceX. And that is revenue for SpaceX. I don't know why you're so insistent it isn't.
reply