The AI Revenue Debate: Additive or Zero-Sum?
Anthropic projects $149 billion in ARR by 2029. But this raises a fundamental question: is AI spending additive to software budgets or zero-sum?
Here's what the debate means for the industry.
The Projection
Anthropic's target: $149 billion by 2029.
For context, this would make AI one of the largest software categories. But can it be achieved?
The Additive View
Some argue AI spending expands total budgets:
- New use cases create new spending
- AI enables work that wasn't possible before
- Time expands rather than shifts
This means AI grows the total software market.
The Zero-Sum View
Others argue AI replaces existing spend:
- AI does what existing software does
- Budgets shift, not expand
- Zero-sum competition
This means AI captures existing software budgets.
Revenue Stacking
The reality is complex. Revenue comes from multiple sources:
- Cloud infrastructure
- Chips and hardware
- ISVs building on AI
- Consultancies implementing AI
Each source represents different economics.
Multi-Model Reality
Companies deploy multiple AI models:
No single provider wins everything. Different models suit different tasks.
This creates a fragmented market where many players can succeed.
What This Means
The additive vs zero-sum debate matters for strategy:
- Additive: bigger opportunity for everyone
- Zero-sum: winner-take-most dynamics
The truth likely lies between both views. Some use cases are additive, others replace existing spend.
Stay ahead of AI trends. tldl summarizes podcasts from builders and investors in the AI space.