8 ms·

Ask HN: What's Rabbit R1 business model?

16 points by Halan 2y ago

No subscription sounds too good to be true long term considering API calls costs and their rabbit hole storage.

jpiratefish 2y ago
The R1 is more a platform attempt at this point. Their aim is to disrupt if possible - hence their logic over putting this in dedicated hardware and owning the entire experience - and not just publishing a phone app. I could see some future LAM integrations be paid service extras.
- Halan 2y ago
  This play makes sense, I am just surprised it is coming from a startup. They must be backed by somebody with deep pockets.
  - msephton 2y ago
    They're not really a startup. They've changed their name a bunch of times.
WesSouza 2y ago
I believe they are betting on being able to monetize things around their "Large Action Model". Could be market for the automations, where people can for example sell "buy tickets on ticketmaster" actions. They could also monetize all the data they have and will have training that particular model, which is very lucrative if the AI bubble continues to inflate.
- datadrivenangel 2y ago
  Voice skill discoverability was a huge issue for Amazon's alexa, and I don't see how this is any different except it's more expensive for both hardware and processing.
micromacrofoot 2y ago
raise more funding or sell, isn't that the business model of most startups these days? profitability is a problem for the bag holders
doctorpangloss 2y ago
I think the same as Teenage Engineering's: selling most people a fancy paperweight.
datadrivenangel 2y ago
grift? I think the move is to raise more and more money and try to find a business model?
Reubend 2y ago
1. Sell hardware that has a decent margin. 2. Use that margin to pay for cloud inference costs for an LLM. 3. Gain popularity enough to either raise hardware prices or add a subscription.
blastonico 2y ago
[dead]
goodmattg 2y ago
sell enough units to convince Khosla Ventures that you aren't just burning their money, forcing them to double down on the vision and bring in new investors for the next round. Rinse and repeat until the Large Action Model is either extraordinarily valuable or you've torched all the money.
osener 2y ago
Same as Humane Ai Pin, Apple Vision Pro etc. They’re making a bet and hoping that when the world moves on from smartphones, they’ll be _the_ platform for the next frontier. In software we see a lot of these “re-imaginings” come and go, see Arc browser, new cloud databases and myriad other things rolling the dice and hoping that they can disrupt and monetize later. I think this is rarer in hardware because a. It is harder, requires more planning, inventory management, higher standards and budget b. Higher barrier to entry means not a lot of small players taking risks. I suppose it takes a technological shift like AI or spatial computing to re-imagine hardware interaction as well. The saddest part is, when software companies come and go all that is wasted is some VC money and Twitter rants. With hardware, we’re making more junk to fill up oceans and waste precious resources…
- davitocan 2y ago
  Arguably there's an energy cost to running that software as well that's wasted. Plus potential waste on cloud providers adding hardware to support it all.
- neduma 2y ago
  Disagree. It's all part of iterations or being part of destructive path to something great at the end.
tracerbulletx 2y ago
I think a lot of founders want to finish the analogy, as Steve Jobs was to the early Personal Computer, I will be to the early AI scene. They look at the marketplace and realize if they build on android or iOS they are subject to the whims and destruction of Apple and Google. They therefore decide the only option is to build their own hardware and see how it goes. I think it will be almost impossible to beat a phone connected to a peripheral with a camera mic and speaker like the meta glasses paired to your phone though in the long run.
rvz 2y ago
To sell hardware just like any other hardware & software company. At least it is not a complete subscription on the device itself or a SaaS for once.
shams93 2y ago
They're using flutter under the hood so worst case for them they could pivot off hardware and into an app based agent.
pedalpete 2y ago
My understanding is the hardware is just for early adopters. They don't have the AI ready for mass consumption, it still needs to be trained on many of the tasks people are going to ask of it. Therefore, the early adopters who will go through that pain are willing to fork out for the hardware. Then, they will either a) sell a new hardware with subscription b) sell only software likely as a subscription c) plan just to be acquired.
ethanholt1 2y ago
It’s an “all you can eat” business model. They’re offering more than any user will realistically use, therefore bringing in more users for the deal they’re offering, therefore more units sold, therefore more profit.

16 points by Halan 2y ago

No subscription sounds too good to be true long term considering API calls costs and their rabbit hole storage.

The R1 is more a platform attempt at this point. Their aim is to disrupt if possible - hence their logic over putting this in dedicated hardware and owning the entire experience - and not just publishing a phone app. I could see some future LAM integrations be paid service extras.

Halan 2y ago
This play makes sense, I am just surprised it is coming from a startup. They must be backed by somebody with deep pockets.
- msephton 2y ago
  They're not really a startup. They've changed their name a bunch of times.

WesSouza 2y ago

I believe they are betting on being able to monetize things around their "Large Action Model". Could be market for the automations, where people can for example sell "buy tickets on ticketmaster" actions. They could also monetize all the data they have and will have training that particular model, which is very lucrative if the AI bubble continues to inflate.

datadrivenangel 2y ago
Voice skill discoverability was a huge issue for Amazon's alexa, and I don't see how this is any different except it's more expensive for both hardware and processing.

micromacrofoot 2y ago

raise more funding or sell, isn't that the business model of most startups these days? profitability is a problem for the bag holders

doctorpangloss 2y ago

I think the same as Teenage Engineering's: selling most people a fancy paperweight.

datadrivenangel 2y ago

grift? I think the move is to raise more and more money and try to find a business model?

Reubend 2y ago

1. Sell hardware that has a decent margin. 2. Use that margin to pay for cloud inference costs for an LLM. 3. Gain popularity enough to either raise hardware prices or add a subscription.

blastonico 2y ago

[dead]

goodmattg 2y ago

sell enough units to convince Khosla Ventures that you aren't just burning their money, forcing them to double down on the vision and bring in new investors for the next round. Rinse and repeat until the Large Action Model is either extraordinarily valuable or you've torched all the money.

osener 2y ago

Same as Humane Ai Pin, Apple Vision Pro etc. They’re making a bet and hoping that when the world moves on from smartphones, they’ll be _the_ platform for the next frontier. In software we see a lot of these “re-imaginings” come and go, see Arc browser, new cloud databases and myriad other things rolling the dice and hoping that they can disrupt and monetize later. I think this is rarer in hardware because a. It is harder, requires more planning, inventory management, higher standards and budget b. Higher barrier to entry means not a lot of small players taking risks. I suppose it takes a technological shift like AI or spatial computing to re-imagine hardware interaction as well. The saddest part is, when software companies come and go all that is wasted is some VC money and Twitter rants. With hardware, we’re making more junk to fill up oceans and waste precious resources…

davitocan 2y ago
Arguably there's an energy cost to running that software as well that's wasted. Plus potential waste on cloud providers adding hardware to support it all.
neduma 2y ago
Disagree. It's all part of iterations or being part of destructive path to something great at the end.

tracerbulletx 2y ago

I think a lot of founders want to finish the analogy, as Steve Jobs was to the early Personal Computer, I will be to the early AI scene. They look at the marketplace and realize if they build on android or iOS they are subject to the whims and destruction of Apple and Google. They therefore decide the only option is to build their own hardware and see how it goes. I think it will be almost impossible to beat a phone connected to a peripheral with a camera mic and speaker like the meta glasses paired to your phone though in the long run.

rvz 2y ago

To sell hardware just like any other hardware & software company. At least it is not a complete subscription on the device itself or a SaaS for once.

shams93 2y ago

They're using flutter under the hood so worst case for them they could pivot off hardware and into an app based agent.

pedalpete 2y ago

My understanding is the hardware is just for early adopters. They don't have the AI ready for mass consumption, it still needs to be trained on many of the tasks people are going to ask of it. Therefore, the early adopters who will go through that pain are willing to fork out for the hardware. Then, they will either a) sell a new hardware with subscription b) sell only software likely as a subscription c) plan just to be acquired.

ethanholt1 2y ago

It’s an “all you can eat” business model. They’re offering more than any user will realistically use, therefore bringing in more users for the deal they’re offering, therefore more units sold, therefore more profit.