We are in a bubble, but you are looking at this in the wrong way. OpenRouter basically creates lock-in through Stripe's distribution and family of products; it is much stronger within Stripe than alone. I agree valuations are absurd, but it is what it is. But if we have to go through a bubble for a16z to crash and burn, I am all for it.
So customers use OpenRouter to avoid lock-in to specific model providers, and in doing so they lock-in into openrouter's aggregation API?
Lock-in to what exactly? A string(string) function without any further restrictions? Note that aggregator users will not use more specific parameter features (because those vary by vendor), or they escape the aggregator and lock-in directly string(string, vendorOptions={"openAI.logprobs":true})
Selling vendor lock-in to vendor lock-in avoidant customers sounds like a losing proposition, like trying to beat competition on price and undercutting, which is a thing openrouter does too btw, the main reason people use these products is to get cheaper prices. I don't think 2$/M tokens is expensive, and I don't think those that try to cut costs are going to win, whether devs cutting token costs, or small business owners with 5 employees who look at AI as a way to fire 2 of them. I get that the other end of the spectrum is overspending and tokenmaxxing, but the conclusion is that extremes are bad? Nothing new here.
Yeah, I mean, it looks like a network effect, but anybody can aggregate the models; rather, it is the switching costs in the logs and work, and the cost savings, etc.
So they added $30B market cap for a drug that would do by my napkin estimate about ~$7B average annual sales for 20 years as a front line treatment. Based on that alone, $30B in added market cap isn't enough. How much would you pay for $150B in high margin revenue?
But even more is the validation of this new custom MRNA novel cancer treating platform. If you take this data result to be a 'proof of concept', the expected value of the rest of their pipeline is suddenly worth a lot more.
Of course, this is all assuming the data is accurate and the drug gets approved, neither of which are 100% guaranteed.
Yeah, except profits are down from the peak. I do not know enough about the market, but my suspicion is that they basically benefited by focusing on a specific market, "Focus," and will basically see this erode over time as more companies in the high end move into their market.
pivoting is useful if you are doing several things, one well and the others badly. You stop doing whatever it is you are bad at and focus on what you are good.
If your company is going strongly overall, you can just continue doing whatever you are doing (adapting to the market is still necessary, but not with huge changes)
I think generalizations are usually bad. I genuinely am weirded out by management's fascination with consultants. It really is about incentives, and consultants usually do not have the right ones, at least the big ones. Also, there are management which feel like companies always need change, but really you have to examine the competitve position within the broader industry not just a vacumm. Things honestly stay the same for a long time. IBM had more revenue then Microsoft all the way up to the early 2010s. Switching costs are powerful - https://s-1.vercel.app/posts/why-dropbox-is-a-obvious-pe-tar...
I think a key takeaway is the human nature to constantly act, and not just sit and do nothing. Lot's of value in sitting around, especially in investing.
In my experience senior management hires management consultants to tell them to do what they wanted to do anyway but now they can blame the consultants.
The two consults in Office Space absolutely nailed it.
It seems that management in most organisations can't believe something unless they've paid vast sums for it. So they can't believe their own staff if they say X, even if it's right, because they haven't paid enough for it. Then the consultant comes along, interviews the staff, finds they say X, tell the client, charge buckets for it, and are believed. Weird human behaviour...
I see it often at work. I say something and it's met with "you have a very bad attitude". They hear the exact same thing (ex. "we should see where our responsibility begins and ends according to the contract made with the client, and tell them to fuck off otherwise") from someone else, and then it's the next big thing.
the perception is that employees have an incentive to lie: to cover their ass, to cover their incompetence, to be or stay lazy, to ensure their bonuses are better, etc.
in theory, an expensive outside consultant does not have those incentives: they are being paid 800/hr, have no dog in any fight, have a fixed contract and no reason to worry about getting promoted or fired next cycle, and have already been pre-vetted for expertise.
if I do not have faith in my goober, fork-and-spoon operator employees, I pay for these folks to validate the approach. that's not incompetence, that's due diligence.
it's not my money, nor my department -- it's the shareholders -- and I need to convince them that I've done all I can to confirm we need to invest X million in initiative Y.
however in practice consulting falls victim to plenty of bad behaviors, rent seeking, and risks, too
The term most people here would use for your job is “contractor”, not “consultant.”
A consultant, in most people’s minds, is someone they would consult with, who would tell them what to do, in an advisory capacity; not someone who would actually do any kind of work. (In other words, a management consultant.)
The only people who use the term differently are consulting firms themselves, because they think “consultant” sounds fancier (and worth paying more for!) than “contractor.”
TFA surely refers to management consultants, your parent looks like it as well (when they talk about management obsession with consultants).
Technical consultants are mostly OK if their skill is not your main line of business, you just need a few of them or you need them temporarily. Companies employing thousands of software engineers or other professionals from consultancy firms only demonstrate their inability to plan, hire and organize people. It usually correlates with companies employing swats of management consultants.
Generalizations can be bad, yes. Everyone knows about management consultants ruining companies and governments, contributing to the opioid crisis, etc. But what else do they do?
Let’s crowdsource examples of management consultants delivering a huge amount of value to a company or society in a way that the company couldn’t have accomplished without them.
sometimes, employees are bad at their jobs, or organizations are unable to solve their own problems. people who have no long term loyalty or political agency within the organization can help resolve internal issues, provide external validation and new perspectives, and solve problems.
I tire of the snide arrogance of people like you; you think you can solve everything if you cared to. not every organization can afford to hire people as amazing and all knowing as you.
making talented people available on short contracts, for employers with terrible reputations who cannot hire the right people able to deal with ambiguity and short timelines can be a win win arrangement for both sides.
Are there issues across the industry, including misaligned incentives? absolutely. but that isn't a reason to dismiss the entire industry out of hand.
perhaps we should be equally dismissive of all software devs given the sheer amount of terrible software and predatory revenue models? or are we also going to blame some other faceless group for that as well?
> Are there issues across the industry, including misaligned incentives? absolutely. but that isn't a reason to dismiss the entire industry out of hand.
Misaligned incentives are alone enough reason to dismiss the entire industry.
But more widely if an organization cannot manage itself it has no business being an organization. It has to either go bust, or have senior management let go.
By hiring management consultants the senior management is acknowledging it cannot run the organization.
Software devs have actually hard skills and don’t charge $1,000 an hour to develop a PowerPoint.
Why do only management consultants defend management consultants? Why don’t employees, C-suites, taxpayers, watchdogs, or anyone else ever sing their praises?
I also asked for an example of a good consulting project with real ROI. Please share one.
Nah management consultants are leeches. If they really thought their clients could turn it around with One Simple Trick (that only 22yo ivy league alums could see) they would close up shop and move into PE.
Generalizations are heuristics we build upon our experiences. Not 100% correct but a good mental model to adopt situationally.
You are shooting down the whole notion of generationalizion without much backing.
You gotta provide why it's bad instead of whataboutism direction you took.
Bro nothing is free, if the goverment pays for all of us, then it is our own money being used for that, we have the most liberal tax code in the world, we spend the most in healthcare.
Basically, OpenRouter makes sense because it further strengthens developer lock in, not sure what PayPal adds to that. Plus, on paper today, PayPal is a behemoth compared to Stripe; their FCF is Stripe's revenue today, so valuations are out of touch, plus Stripe should go public so they can use stock in these acquisitions, it lowers there costs of capital, relative to their crazy valuation today.
