gitah

If you're going to compare OpenRouter numbers for DeepSeek at least use the same metric to compare Gemini. During last week DeepSeek V4 Flash did 3.72T tokens which is way higher than combined token counts for Gemini (2.5 Flash + 3.5 Flash + 3.1 Pro)

DeepSeek's official API, which has 10x cheaper cached input cost isn't even on OpenRouter as a provider, so just like Google, most volume is not going through OpenRouter. (Gemini's official hosted api is on OpenRouter BTW)

Also you're comparing an API with Google's internal corporate and consumer app use. Bytedance announced they were using 63T tokens/day (441T / week) at the end of 2025, so they are probably even higher than Google now. We don't know how much weekly tokens the DeepSeek chatapp uses, but it would also be a very high number much higher than OpenRouter tokens.

For the real reason of the recent price drops, go ask your AI about how much it would cost to run DeepSeek V4 or MiMo 2.5 after Ascend 950 PR have started to be mass delivered in 2026 Apr at $10k / card.

Just compare construction GDP between China and US. Both report a similar amount nominally (once adjusted for exchange rate), but China uses more than 10x the cement and steel as the US.

This is for actually building things. On the tertiary side, housing service GDP (ex. rent and inputed rent) has the US report 2-3x more than China despite having 25% the population.

Combine the e-scooter with the bike sharing concept and you'll have the next big revolution.

1) New models will obviously have more range than ones 4 years ago... My point was the Tesla Semi should be treated as incremental rather than revolutionary, just like releasing a new smartphone model with more RAM than one 4 years ago. Also the Tesla Semi hasn't even launched yet so they can easily overpromise making comparisons with any existing offerings difficult.

2) As with Ford for ICE vehicles, affordable EVs selling higher volumes are much more important to than the premium EVs offered by Tesla in terms bringing the tech mainstream. In this way, BYD and Nissan should be credited much more than Tesla. In terms of contribution, I would put BYD much higher than Tesla: BYD manufacturers their own batteries, sell more vehicles, drive industry competition in the much more relevant CN market, and their success influnced the Chinese government to phase out ICE cars.

3) My post was specifically replying the the person above who was worshipping Musk on a pedestal and giving all the credit to Tesla.

This is typical Silicon Valley hype taking credit for everything. There were many EV manufacturers around the same time as Tesla (ex. Nissan, BYD). Even earlier, the supply chain for lithium batteries got momentum due to electric buses and hybrid vehicle manufactures but no one gives them credit, only Tesla for some reason. Currently, Tesla is only a small chunk of the entire EV and battery market but still gets all the credit.

You can see this in the Tesla Semi or the Tesla battery pack announcement. Companies have been mass producing them 4 years before and are already being used in production today. However, being B2B, these products were largely low key. But somehow Tesla gets all the credit these and "moving the industry forward". Chinese and Korean battery manufactures have also been expanding production like crazy and account for the vast majority of production but only the GigaFactory gets any mention which cause some people think Tesla alone is responsible for the decreasing price of batteries.

Major auto manufactures are working on EV mainly due to government policy. I agree private companies seeing traction selling EVs is a large impetus for the new government policies, but to only credit Tesla is over-exagerating it's contributions. How much does Tesla influence Chinese policy when 95% of Chinese EVs are made by domestic brands?

This is a very Silicon Valley / US bubble mindset. Telsa/GM/Nissan have made much contribution but your are missing the major factor driving the EV industry forward which is government industrial policy.

The real reason is EU and China have announced their intention of banning ICE vehicles around 2030 with China having very aggressive EV marketshare goals starting next year. Companies that do not meet EV sale goals will have to buy credits from others that do just like a carbon emission market. This is causing all major automakers to not be complacent and invest heavily in EVs.

Completely agree with you. The article looks at just a few companies and use them to claim Chinese brands as a whole won't succeed internationally ever. Very myopic.

The conclusion would be different if the author analyzed Chinese smartphone brands instead. Five years ago, even the domestic market was dominated by foreign brands like HTC and Samsung; now the domestic market is the complete opposite. Looking at the supply chain, back then all China provided was low-paid final assembly. Now, Chinese companies are very competitive in supplying most of the parts: displays, camera modules, fingerprint scanners, enclosures, sound components, RF components, batteries, SOC, etc. Only high-end semiconductor components (RAM, NAND, application processors) are lacking but Chinese industrial policy will rapidly help this area catch up.

Chinese smartphones (phones with a Chinese brand not just manufactured there) have seen massive success internationally in the past couple of years and now make up HALF of global marketshare. In India, OnePlus has higher customer loyalty and sales than Apple in the high-end and Xiaomi is neck in neck with Samsung as the marketshare leader starting from zero two years ago.

Now remember, all of this happened in just the last five years. What other industries will break out in the next 5 years?

Just walk around a BestBuy in the US and you'll quickly realize how many Chinese brands there are: TP-Link routers, Huawei routers and phones, Lenovo laptops, Hisense TVs, ZTE phones, DJI drones, Haier appliances, Ninebot scooters, Instantpot press cookers, etc. If you also count brands owned by Chinese companies than include GE appliances and Motorola, Alcatel, Blackberry smartphones.

Go on Amazon.com and Chinese brands are bestsellers in many electronic categories: Anker/Sunvalleytek in phone accessories, Yi in action cameras and dash cams and security cameras, TCL in televisions, etc.

Also the rest of the world isn't just US. Chinese smartphone brands have 50% marketshare world wide. Xiaomi, Huawei, OPPO are growing fast in South Asia, South East Asian and MENA. Transsion (you've probably never even heard of this company) owns phone brands that dominate Africa and is the marketshare leader there. Chinese home appliance and consumer electronic brands are also big in non-western countries.

I don't get it. US workers still have 5x higher average income than China. Doesn't this suggest there are still a ton of technological improvement left to exploit? Why can't China just keep walking the same path of technological improvement as the US?

Can you elaborate?

From the article, Pettis assumes the following is true:

  1) China has overinvested in infrastructure and manufacturing capacity to such an extent 
  that in the aggregate the cost of additional 
  public sector investment exceeds the present 
  value of future increases in productivity generated by 
  the investment

and

  2) China's long-term sustainable growth rate is substantially below the economy's current GDP growth target

Why does he make these assumptions without also analyzing the technology improvement aspect? I don't see anything about that in this article.