"Cost of revenue" isn't the entire cost of running the company, (ie R&D, operations, sales, marketing, etc). It's just a cost they've associated with revenue IN ADDITION to the other costs I mentioned.
HSBC say they need to turn a 13b revenue to 200b by 2030 AND also find another 204b, in order to become profitable.
Oracle spending ~$340 billion to build infrastructure that generates ~$75 billion annually, financed almost entirely with off-balance-sheet debt, while its free cash flow is negative $24.7 billion.
Amazon just did something unprecedented: they're forcing a 90-day safety reset across 335 critical systems after their AI coding tool caused catastrophic outages. The March 5th incident alone lost 6.3 million orders and triggered 21,716 peak Downdetector reports.
Those who think Gary Marcus, Ed Zitron and Yann LeCunn are wrong, and believe in AI: How do you reconcile things when AI thinks the market is highly likely to collapse?
Quote: "The entire system only works if AI revenue grows fast enough to outrun the obsolescence treadmill. For that to happen, Microsoft would need approximately $130 billion per year in new AI revenue, Google $100 billion, Amazon $120 billion, and Meta $70 billion. Against a current reality of $18 billion in total industry AI revenue and zero profits, that gap is not a rounding error. It is the entire bet."