zlacker

I don't get it. Why would Anthropic need to own a JS runtime?

>>yanis_+(OP)
Because they have a product that makes $1bn+ a year that depends on having a good, stable, cross-platform JS runtime.

>>simonw+n
You're describing Node.js which has existed for the last 15 years

>>simonw+n
I'm still confused. Why not just pour a ton of resources into it since it's open source. I guess dev mindshare? It is a great product

>>simonw+n
That doesn’t require or benefit from acquiring Bun. Node continues to exist and serve fine.

>>simonw+n
but they are a company that burns billions every year in losses and this seems like a pretty random acquisition.

Bun is the product that depends on providing that good, stable, cross-platform JS runtime and they were already doing a good job. Why would Anthropic's acquisition of them make them better at what they were already doing?

>>yanis_+(OP)
Why would Sun then Oracle own Java? Why would Microsoft own .net? Why would Apple own swift?

IOW look where the puck is going.

>>yanis_+(OP)
I'm wondering if Bun would be a good embedded runtime for Claude to think in. If it does sandboxing, or if they can add sandboxing, then they can standardize on a language and runtime for Claude Code and Claude Desktop and bake it into training like they do with other agentic things like tool calls. It'd be too risky to do unless they owned the runtime.

>>LunaSe+81
And is owned by Microsoft. The theory is that by symmetry Anthropic should own a node competitor.

>>altman+u2
>but they are a company that burns billions every year in losses

No they don't.

>>simonw+n
Ok but node is even more stable and mature - compare node api parity in bun and also issue of bun vs node

>>dboreh+r4
Microsoft doesn't own node.

>>pzo+06
But they are not using node any more?

>>krashi+z1
Pouring a ton of resources into an open source project that raised $26m in VC doesn't guarantee that the project will stick around. Acquiring it does.

>>altman+u2
> Why would Anthropic's acquisition of them make them better at what they were already doing?

Because now the Bun team don't have to redirect their resources to implementing a sustainable business model.

>>simonw+oc
Buying Bun to ensure it sticks around doesn't pass the smell test unless they had very few months of runway left

>>krashi+nk
Bun had four years of runway left.

>>NewsaH+S5
> As discussed previously, OpenAI lost $5 billion and Anthropic $5.3 billion in 2024, with OpenAI expecting to lose upwards of $8 billion and Anthropic — somehow — only losing $3 billion in 2025. I have severe doubts that these numbers are realistic, with OpenAI burning at least $3 billion in cash on salaries this year alone, and Anthropic somehow burning two billion dollars less on revenue that has, if you believe its leaks, increased 500% since the beginning of the year.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/why-everybody-is-losing-money-on...

>>simonw+Xc
It's Anthropic, not Microsoft. They already had a runway of 4 years, and honestly, that is preferable to hitching their wagon to a volatile startup like Antropic.

>>altman+eH1
You may have posted the wrong link, because what you posted was not a source, but rather an amatuer blogger's oponion about what anthrotic's and OpenAI revenue and losses are. Do you have the correct link to actual evidence that Anthropic has losses in the billions?

>>NewsaH+yk4
> Privately held companies often disclose revenue figures if they are growing quickly, but keep the rest of their finances a secret because they often tell a far less impressive story. The approach is especially true for AI developers that don’t want to disclose the extraordinary rate at which they are burning cash. The Journal is reporting Anthropic’s base case projections, not its more optimistic forecasts.

> The Information earlier reported on some of the financial figures for both companies.

> The documents show that OpenAI expects to burn $9 billion after generating $13 billion in sales this year, while Anthropic expects to burn almost $3 billion on $4.2 billion in sales—roughly 70% of revenue for both.

https://archive.is/e7pg9 / https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-anthropic-profitability-e... (paywall)

>>altman+Hh5
Thanks for the link, however, this is not saying what you think it is saying. This is talking about expenses, not losses. Saying that Anthropic has expenses in the billions is as meaningless as saying that Google has expenses in the hundreds of billions. This exemplifies why I hate it when people use amateur blogs to try to show that AI companies are failing; they use amateurish interpretations that are usually wrong, and a lot of people latch on to them because it confirms their own ideals

>>NewsaH+xS5
Please read the article. When it says it'll burn $x on $x revenue, it means the burn is not expenses but the net loss. Here is another article that says the same thing:

https://fortune.com/2025/11/12/openai-cash-burn-rate-annual-...

Do you really think Anthrophic's annual expenses are in single digit billions? Or OpenAI's annual expenses being less than $9 billion?

> people latch on to them because it confirms their own ideals

I think this applies universally, even to yourself, no? You're so deadset on believeing Anthrophic is not losing billions, you're debating semantics and borderline insulting my reading skills.