Alex｜美股投资 @AlexResearchX

开源模型的盈利模式很多，主要是服务企业，企业由于隐私，安全需求，后续如果开源模型足够用，他们会采用开源模型部署在本地，另外开源有些重要模型后续肯定会控制权重的开放，仅仅给付费企业用户授权用； 另外企业获得模型之后，还需要有人搭建： 推理框架； 模型服务； Agent 平台； 安全系统； 集群管理； 业务集成。 开源模型的商业模式：通过提供这层服务赚钱。 不过问题是这个过程会比较慢，另外欧美，后续一些大企业大概率还是仅仅用欧美的开源模型，，国内AI开源模型想赚欧美这些企业的钱也比较麻烦。

lifcc @mylifcc

18 hours ago

中国 AI 六小强加起来，赚的钱只有 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 的 10%。 Epoch AI 刚发了篇报告，把国内 AI 圈那层“繁荣”的窗户纸给捅穿了。 数据冷酷到让人倒吸一口凉气： 1️⃣ C 端全是“白嫖怪” 用户量几千万看着吓人，付费转化率不到 6%。 MiniMax 的 C 端应用毛利率只有 4.7%（甚至赶不上卖煎饼果子）。

98 35 349 57K 138

@MsVeilMoney My current average cost is close to $70. My initial plan is to add to my position every time the price drops by $10 and then hold the shares for 10 years. Of course, I also hold some long-term call options, which I plan to sell once they reach my profit targets.

未来的智能终端的交互，从触摸屏+APP的方式 会大部分迁移到语音+眼球+agent+skill的方式

2007年，苹果颠覆了诺基亚。2028年，AI Native 手机会不会再次颠覆苹果？ 最近听了高通 CEO Cristiano Amon 的访谈，我突然意识到，苹果可能正在面临一场类似当年诺基亚遭遇的挑战。 2007年，诺基亚还是手机霸主。 当苹果推出 iPhone 时，诺基亚并不觉得有什么了不起。 触摸屏？我们也能做。 音乐播放器？我们也有。 上网、拍照、收邮件？这些功能我们早就有了。 但诺基亚没有意识到，苹果不是在改进手机，而是在重新定义手机。 真正颠覆诺基亚的，不是触摸屏，而是 iOS + App Store 彻底改变了人们使用手机的方式。 如今，历史可能正在重演。 高通 CEO 透露，一些顶尖 AI 公司已经要求高通：到2028年，手机必须能够运行至少1000亿参数的 AI 模型，而且可以持续运行。 为什么？ 因为真正的 AI Native 手机，可能根本不需要用户自己操作 App。 今天，你想订机票，需要打开 App、搜索、比较、填写信息、付款。 未来，你只需要告诉 AI： “帮我安排下周去伦敦的行程，机票加酒店预算1000欧元。” AI 就会自己调用各种服务，在获得必要授权后完成任务。 过去是人操作手机，未来是 AI 替人操作手机。 这背后最大的变化是什么？ 过去20年，手机的核心是操作系统 + App。 未来20年，手机的核心可能变成 AI Agent + Skills。 App 可能逐渐退居幕后，Agent 成为新的用户入口。 这对苹果意味着什么？ 苹果当然没有停止发展 AI。新版 Siri 已经开始具备个人上下文理解、跨 App 执行任务等能力。 但真正的问题是： 苹果会不会满足于给现有 iOS 不断增加 AI 功能，而没有勇气重新设计整个操作系统？ 当年诺基亚也在不断改进 Symbian。 它不是没有技术，不是没有资金，更不是没有用户。 它只是试图用上一代操作系统的逻辑，迎接下一代手机革命。 而今天，OpenAI、Google、字节跳动等 AI 公司，都有机会从 Agent 出发，重新思考手机应该是什么样子。 苹果拥有巨大的生态优势，但这也可能成为转型的包袱。 因为当用户不再需要逐个打开 App，整个 App Store 的价值分配方式都可能发生变化。 当然，苹果也完全可能成为 AI Native 时代的赢家。 但我越来越觉得： 下一家颠覆苹果的公司，未必是一家传统手机厂商，而可能是一家 AI 公司。 2007年，诺基亚输掉的不是手机市场，而是下一代操作系统。 这一次，苹果必须回答同一个问题： AI 究竟只是 iOS 的一个新功能，还是下一代操作系统本身？

果壳星球 第七集 飞碟仓库 youtu.be/NKrYPZbxdUg?si… 来自 @YouTube

@Rustallintsla 看上去就很好吃

@TaoRay 屌丝最重要的是帅，薄肌你不脱衣服谁看的见，有钱的这些都不用

@vistword 同意

@0xKevinJ 是的，都是相通的

投资很像德州扑克。 你不需要每一手都赢。 有些牌你判断错了，亏 20%、30%，甚至 50%； 但只要少数几次真正看对，而且敢下重注，拿到 10 倍、20 倍的回报，就足以覆盖前面的错误。 输的时候承认错误，控制损失，赢的时候让利润奔跑。 这样即使你一半时间是错的，你仍然可能取得极好的长期成绩。

GM

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@alanchen 完全不是一个级别的人，不能和马斯克放一块提 AI，黄毛，女朋友，香蕉，巴菲特，郝allen，小特朗普在他眼里都是引流，利用工具，你看他做的事情就清楚了。只要是潮流有话题的，他一定会去沾边。这就是真正的孙学。

@bboczeng 让他们看看x.com/AlexResearchX/…

Alex｜美股投资 @AlexResearchX

3 days ago

普通人逆袭很难，看看年轻人崇拜的孙割是怎么发家的，台面上的孙学都是故事，美化，真正厉害的，没人会摆上台面给你讲。 @DKFK1688 @JohnsonZ91127 @vistword @XiaoGuo_168

1 1 4 163 0

我很好奇，我发现谈论$ASTS的人很多是来自法国的朋友，是因为Orange和ASTS合作的原因吗？

2026年8月4日，马斯克在 SpaceX 第二季度财报电话会上表示： The biggest constraint right now is memory. 马斯克担心的不是单纯缺 DRAM，而是未来整个 AI 芯片供应链的产能，无法满足他庞大的商业计划。 那回到航天，太空，我认为最大的瓶颈就是： 航天发射能力 截至2026年10月10日，全球今年已进行了约240次轨道火箭发射。 所以这就是为什么要投资$RKLB的原因。

@SpaceInvestor_D Yes，Agree

I don’t believe the US government, or the world, will allow any single company or ecosystem to dominate every major industry. Just look at the recent US lunar base initiatives. SpaceX, Blue Origin, $RKLB, $LUNR, and several smaller companies are all competing for opportunities. Each has a chance to succeed. But as you pointed out, if Musk’s companies become so competitive that they achieve overwhelming market dominance across multiple industries, I believe government intervention becomes increasingly likely. How that would happen, I’m not sure. Perhaps a future Democratic administration would take a tougher stance toward Musk’s companies. Ultimately, technological superiority doesn't guarantee unlimited market dominance, especially when national strategic interests are involved.

$ASTS’s Biggest Risk Isn’t Technology — It’s That Its Future Competitors Control Its Access to Space $ASTS currently relies heavily on SpaceX and Blue Origin to launch its satellites. The problem? The satellite communications businesses behind these companies could become ASTS’s fiercest competitors. I believe this is one of the most critical factors determining ASTS’s long-term commercial success. And it’s exactly why I’ve consistently argued that space companies without their own launch capabilities face enormous long-term strategic risks. The direct-to-device (D2D) satellite market could eventually be dominated by three major players: ① SpaceX / Starlink Owns Falcon 9, is developing Starship, manufactures its own satellites, and controls 2GHz spectrum assets while pursuing additional 800MHz spectrum. ② Amazon / Blue Origin / Globalstar Amazon is building its satellite communications network and expanding its spectrum portfolio through Globalstar. Blue Origin has the New Glenn heavy-lift rocket. Although Amazon and Blue Origin are separate companies, their potential industrial synergies are significant. ③ AST SpaceMobile Has advanced large-scale phased-array technology and partnerships with AT&T and Verizon. But it lacks one critical capability: its own rockets. Now ask yourself: What happens when your competitors can manufacture and launch their own satellites, while you have to pay those same competitors to launch yours? Today, they're your suppliers. Tomorrow, they could be your direct competitors. Satellite communications isn't a business where you launch once and you're done. Constellations require continuous satellite replacement, capacity expansion, and technological upgrades. Launch costs, launch schedules, and deployment speed ultimately become competitive advantages. Of course, owning rockets doesn't automatically guarantee the lowest costs. But controlling your own launch capabilities means you don't have to depend on competitors to build and maintain your constellation. This is also why I believe $ASTS should pursue a deeper strategic partnership with $RKLB. If Neutron achieves reliable, high-frequency commercial operations, Rocket Lab could become an important independent launch partner for ASTS, reducing supply-chain dependence while potentially improving costs and deployment flexibility. However, Neutron still needs to prove its reliability, capabilities, and launch economics. My view: ASTS is unlikely to disappear. Its technology could be highly successful. But its long-term profitability remains deeply uncertain. As SpaceX, Amazon, and other major players expand their constellations, satellite communications could ultimately become a battle over cost per unit of usable capacity. ASTS must capitalize on its current technological window to establish coverage, customers, and revenue as quickly as possible. The fundamental difference between the space industry and the software industry is simple: Software can be replicated almost infinitely. Satellites must be physically launched into orbit, again and again. Whoever controls affordable, reliable, high-frequency access to space holds a major strategic advantage in the next generation of space infrastructure. And that's precisely why I remain long-term bullish on $RKLB, while staying cautious about $ASTS's long-term profit margins. #RKLB #ASTS #SpaceX #Starlink #AMZN @leboenojeannot @IngJuanPa7 @RKLBMan @StockSavvyShay @SpaceInvestor_D @NURadu_ @heeraniparkash @elpistollero_

@elpistollero_ Yes，That's what we want to see.

I understand your concerns, and I agree that execution and capital allocation will be enormous challenges. But remember, Starlink is currently SpaceX’s most important revenue engine. To fund Musk’s ambitious technological ecosystem, he needs to keep expanding Starlink’s profitability, leverage AI to increase the ecosystem’s overall valuation, and attract more capital. Direct-to-device satellite connectivity is a massive opportunity, and I believe Musk will make it a top priority to drive Starlink’s next phase of growth. That said, I don't believe the US will allow SpaceX to dominate such critical infrastructure without meaningful competition. ASTS, Blue Origin, or potentially a third player could emerge as strategic counterweights. My view is that SpaceX will keep pushing aggressively, but the market is big enough for multiple major players to succeed.

I agree that space sovereignty will become increasingly important, creating opportunities for both $ASTS and $RKLB. My bigger concern is that Amazon and Blue Origin will also become major competitors. They already have ambitious plans, significant resources, and launch capabilities. I don't believe ASTS will fail. My question is how successful and profitable it can ultimately become as competition intensifies. I suspect that growing competitive pressure will eventually push ASTS toward a deeper strategic partnership with RKLB. ASTS needs independent access to space, and RKLB needs major launch customers. It could be a win-win.