DeepSeek R1’s Implications: Winners and Losers in the Generative AI Value Chain

R1 is mainly open, on par with leading exclusive models, appears to have actually been trained at considerably lower expense, and is cheaper to use in regards to API gain access to, all of which indicate an innovation that might change competitive dynamics in the field of Generative AI.
– IoT Analytics sees end users and AI applications providers as the most significant winners of these current developments, while exclusive design service providers stand to lose the most, based on value chain analysis from the Generative AI Market Report 2025-2030 (published January 2025).

Why it matters

For suppliers to the generative AI worth chain: Players along the (generative) AI value chain may require to re-assess their worth proposals and align to a possible truth of low-cost, lightweight, open-weight models.
For generative AI adopters: DeepSeek R1 and other frontier models that might follow present lower-cost options for AI adoption.

Background: DeepSeek’s R1 design rattles the markets

DeepSeek’s R1 model rocked the stock markets. On January 23, 2025, China-based AI start-up DeepSeek launched its open-source R1 reasoning generative AI (GenAI) model. News about R1 rapidly spread, and by the start of stock trading on January 27, 2025, the market cap for numerous significant technology business with big AI footprints had actually fallen drastically ever since:

NVIDIA, a US-based chip designer and developer most known for its information center GPUs, dropped 18% in between the marketplace close on January 24 and the marketplace close on February 3.
Microsoft, the leading hyperscaler in the cloud AI race with its Azure cloud services, dropped 7.5% (Jan 24-Feb 3).
Broadcom, a semiconductor business specializing in networking, broadband, and custom ASICs, dropped 11% (Jan 24-Feb 3).
Siemens Energy, a German energy innovation supplier that supplies energy services for information center operators, dropped 17.8% (Jan 24-Feb 3).

Market participants, and specifically investors, responded to the story that the design that DeepSeek launched is on par with innovative designs, was allegedly trained on only a couple of thousands of GPUs, and is open source. However, since that preliminary sell-off, reports and analysis shed some light on the initial hype.

The insights from this short article are based on

Download a sample to find out more about the report structure, select definitions, choose market information, extra information points, and trends.

DeepSeek R1: What do we understand till now?

DeepSeek R1 is a cost-efficient, advanced thinking design that matches top rivals while promoting openness through publicly available weights.

DeepSeek R1 is on par with leading reasoning models. The largest DeepSeek R1 design (with 685 billion parameters) efficiency is on par or even much better than a few of the leading designs by US foundation model service providers. Benchmarks reveal that DeepSeek’s R1 design carries out on par or much better than leading, more familiar models like OpenAI’s o1 and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
DeepSeek was trained at a significantly lower cost-but not to the level that initial news recommended. Initial reports indicated that the training costs were over $5.5 million, but the real worth of not only training but establishing the design overall has been disputed because its release. According to semiconductor research and consulting company SemiAnalysis, the $5.5 million figure is only one component of the expenses, neglecting hardware costs, the incomes of the research study and advancement group, and other elements.
DeepSeek’s API pricing is over 90% cheaper than OpenAI’s. No matter the true cost to establish the model, DeepSeek is using a much cheaper proposition for using its API: input and output tokens for DeepSeek R1 cost $0.55 per million and $2.19 per million, respectively, compared to OpenAI’s $15 per million and $60 per million for its o1 model.
DeepSeek R1 is an ingenious model. The related clinical paper launched by DeepSeekshows the methodologies utilized to establish R1 based on V3: leveraging the mixture of (MoE) architecture, support learning, and extremely imaginative hardware optimization to produce models requiring fewer resources to train and also less resources to perform AI inference, leading to its previously mentioned API use costs.
DeepSeek is more open than the majority of its competitors. DeepSeek R1 is available totally free on platforms like HuggingFace or GitHub. While DeepSeek has made its weights available and supplied its training methods in its term paper, the original training code and information have not been made available for a knowledgeable person to develop a comparable design, aspects in specifying an open-source AI system according to the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Though DeepSeek has been more open than other GenAI business, R1 remains in the open-weight category when thinking about OSI standards. However, the release triggered interest in the open source neighborhood: Hugging Face has actually introduced an Open-R1 initiative on Github to develop a full recreation of R1 by developing the „missing pieces of the R1 pipeline,“ moving the model to completely open source so anyone can replicate and develop on top of it.
DeepSeek released effective small designs along with the major R1 release. DeepSeek released not only the significant large design with more than 680 billion parameters but also-as of this article-6 distilled designs of DeepSeek R1. The models vary from 70B to 1.5 B, the latter fitting on lots of consumer-grade hardware. As of February 3, 2025, the designs were downloaded more than 1 million times on HuggingFace alone.
DeepSeek R1 was possibly trained on OpenAI’s information. On January 29, 2025, reports shared that Microsoft is investigating whether DeepSeek used OpenAI’s API to train its models (an infraction of OpenAI’s regards to service)- though the hyperscaler also included R1 to its Azure AI Foundry service.

Understanding the generative AI value chain

GenAI costs benefits a broad market value chain. The graphic above, based on research study for IoT Analytics’ Generative AI Market Report 2025-2030 (launched January 2025), represents key recipients of GenAI spending across the value chain. Companies along the value chain include:

Completion users – End users include customers and companies that utilize a Generative AI application.
GenAI applications – Software vendors that include GenAI functions in their items or offer standalone GenAI software application. This consists of enterprise software application companies like Salesforce, with its focus on Agentic AI, and start-ups particularly focusing on GenAI applications like Perplexity or Lovable.
Tier 1 recipients – Providers of structure models (e.g., OpenAI or Anthropic), design management platforms (e.g., AWS Sagemaker, Google Vertex or Microsoft Azure AI), data management tools (e.g., MongoDB or Snowflake), cloud computing and data center operations (e.g., Azure, AWS, Equinix or Digital Realty), AI consultants and integration services (e.g., Accenture or Capgemini), and edge computing (e.g., Advantech or HPE).
Tier 2 recipients – Those whose product or services regularly support tier 1 services, including suppliers of chips (e.g., NVIDIA or AMD), network and server devices (e.g., Arista Networks, Huawei or Belden), server cooling innovations (e.g., Vertiv or Schneider Electric).
Tier 3 beneficiaries – Those whose product or services regularly support tier 2 services, such as companies of electronic style automation software suppliers for chip style (e.g., Cadence or Synopsis), semiconductor fabrication (e.g., TSMC), heat exchangers for cooling innovations, and electric grid technology (e.g., Siemens Energy or ABB).
Tier 4 recipients and beyond – Companies that continue to support the tier above them, such as lithography systems (tier-4) required for semiconductor fabrication devices (e.g., AMSL) or business that offer these providers (tier-5) with lithography optics (e.g., Zeiss).

Winners and losers along the generative AI value chain

The rise of models like DeepSeek R1 signals a possible shift in the generative AI value chain, challenging existing market characteristics and reshaping expectations for success and competitive benefit. If more designs with comparable abilities emerge, certain players may benefit while others face increasing pressure.

Below, IoT Analytics assesses the essential winners and most likely losers based on the innovations presented by DeepSeek R1 and the more comprehensive trend toward open, affordable models. This evaluation thinks about the potential long-lasting impact of such models on the worth chain rather than the instant impacts of R1 alone.

Clear winners

End users

Why these developments are positive: The availability of more and more affordable designs will ultimately lower costs for the end-users and make AI more available.
Why these innovations are unfavorable: No clear argument.
Our take: DeepSeek represents AI development that ultimately benefits completion users of this technology.

GenAI application suppliers

Why these developments are favorable: Startups developing applications on top of structure designs will have more choices to choose from as more models come online. As stated above, DeepSeek R1 is without a doubt cheaper than OpenAI’s o1 model, and though thinking designs are hardly ever utilized in an application context, it shows that ongoing developments and development enhance the designs and make them more affordable.
Why these innovations are unfavorable: No clear argument.
Our take: The availability of more and more affordable models will eventually reduce the expense of including GenAI features in applications.

Likely winners

Edge AI/edge calculating companies

Why these innovations are positive: During Microsoft’s recent revenues call, Satya Nadella explained that „AI will be much more ubiquitous,“ as more workloads will run in your area. The distilled smaller sized designs that DeepSeek released along with the effective R1 design are little adequate to work on lots of edge devices. While little, the 1.5 B, 7B, and 14B designs are likewise comparably powerful reasoning designs. They can fit on a laptop and other less effective gadgets, e.g., IPCs and industrial entrances. These distilled designs have currently been downloaded from Hugging Face hundreds of countless times.
Why these developments are negative: No clear argument.
Our take: The distilled designs of DeepSeek R1 that fit on less powerful hardware (70B and below) were downloaded more than 1 million times on HuggingFace alone. This reveals a strong interest in deploying models in your area. Edge computing manufacturers with edge AI solutions like Italy-based Eurotech, and Taiwan-based Advantech will stand to earnings. Chip companies that focus on edge computing chips such as AMD, ARM, Qualcomm, or perhaps Intel, might also benefit. Nvidia likewise operates in this market segment.

Note: IoT Analytics’ SPS 2024 Event Report (published in January 2025) explores the most current industrial edge AI patterns, as seen at the SPS 2024 fair in Nuremberg, Germany.

Data management services suppliers

Why these developments are favorable: There is no AI without information. To establish applications using open models, adopters will require a wide variety of information for training and throughout release, needing appropriate data management.
Why these developments are unfavorable: No clear argument.
Our take: Data management is getting more crucial as the number of various AI models boosts. Data management business like MongoDB, Databricks and wiki.rolandradio.net Snowflake in addition to the respective offerings from hyperscalers will stand to profit.

GenAI companies

Why these innovations are favorable: The unexpected introduction of DeepSeek as a top gamer in the (western) AI ecosystem reveals that the complexity of GenAI will likely grow for some time. The higher availability of various designs can lead to more complexity, driving more demand for services.
Why these innovations are negative: When leading designs like DeepSeek R1 are available for totally free, the ease of experimentation and implementation may limit the requirement for combination services.
Our take: As new developments pertain to the marketplace, GenAI services demand increases as enterprises attempt to comprehend how to best use open designs for their service.

Neutral

Cloud computing suppliers

Why these innovations are favorable: Cloud players hurried to include DeepSeek R1 in their design management platforms. Microsoft included it in their Azure AI Foundry, and AWS enabled it in Amazon Bedrock and Amazon Sagemaker. While the hyperscalers invest heavily in OpenAI and Anthropic (respectively), they are also model agnostic and enable numerous various models to be hosted natively in their design zoos. Training and fine-tuning will continue to happen in the cloud. However, as designs become more effective, less investment (capital expense) will be needed, which will increase revenue margins for hyperscalers.
Why these developments are negative: More designs are expected to be deployed at the edge as the edge becomes more powerful and models more efficient. Inference is most likely to move towards the edge moving forward. The cost of training advanced designs is likewise expected to decrease further.
Our take: Smaller, more effective models are ending up being more important. This decreases the demand for effective cloud computing both for training and reasoning which might be offset by higher total need and lower CAPEX requirements.

EDA Software providers

Why these innovations are favorable: Demand for brand-new AI chip designs will increase as AI work end up being more specialized. EDA tools will be critical for developing efficient, smaller-scale chips tailored for edge and dispersed AI reasoning
Why these developments are unfavorable: The approach smaller sized, less resource-intensive models may minimize the demand for creating innovative, high-complexity chips enhanced for huge data centers, potentially leading to decreased licensing of EDA tools for high-performance GPUs and ASICs.
Our take: EDA software application service providers like Synopsys and Cadence might benefit in the long term as AI expertise grows and drives demand for brand-new chip styles for edge, consumer, and affordable AI workloads. However, the industry might require to adapt to moving requirements, focusing less on big information center GPUs and more on smaller, efficient AI hardware.

Likely losers

AI chip business

Why these developments are positive: The apparently lower training costs for designs like DeepSeek R1 could eventually increase the total need for AI chips. Some referred to the Jevson paradox, the concept that effectiveness causes more require for a resource. As the training and inference of AI designs become more effective, the demand might increase as higher performance causes decrease costs. ASML CEO Christophe Fouquet shared a similar line of thinking: „A lower expense of AI might mean more applications, more applications suggests more need over time. We see that as an opportunity for more chips need.“
Why these developments are unfavorable: The allegedly lower costs for DeepSeek R1 are based mainly on the need for less innovative GPUs for training. That puts some doubt on the sustainability of massive tasks (such as the just recently announced Stargate project) and the capital expense costs of tech business mainly allocated for buying AI chips.
Our take: IoT Analytics research for its most current Generative AI Market Report 2025-2030 (published January 2025) discovered that NVIDIA is leading the information center GPU market with a market share of 92%. NVIDIA’s monopoly characterizes that market. However, that also reveals how strongly NVIDA’s faith is linked to the ongoing growth of spending on data center GPUs. If less hardware is needed to train and release models, then this could seriously damage NVIDIA’s development story.

Other classifications related to information centers (Networking devices, electrical grid technologies, electrical energy suppliers, and heat exchangers)

Like AI chips, models are likely to end up being more affordable to train and more efficient to deploy, so the expectation for additional information center infrastructure build-out (e.g., networking devices, cooling systems, and power supply options) would reduce appropriately. If fewer high-end GPUs are required, large-capacity information centers may scale back their financial investments in associated infrastructure, potentially impacting need for supporting innovations. This would put pressure on companies that offer vital elements, most especially networking hardware, power systems, and cooling options.

Clear losers

Proprietary design service providers

Why these innovations are favorable: No clear argument.
Why these innovations are unfavorable: The GenAI business that have actually collected billions of dollars of funding for their exclusive designs, such as OpenAI and Anthropic, stand to lose. Even if they develop and launch more open designs, this would still cut into the revenue circulation as it stands today. Further, while some framed DeepSeek as a „side job of some quants“ (quantitative analysts), the release of DeepSeek’s powerful V3 and then R1 designs proved far beyond that sentiment. The question moving forward: What is the moat of proprietary design service providers if advanced designs like DeepSeek’s are getting launched free of charge and end up being fully open and fine-tunable?
Our take: DeepSeek released effective models totally free (for regional implementation) or extremely cheap (their API is an order of magnitude more budget friendly than equivalent designs). Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere will face progressively strong competition from gamers that launch totally free and adjustable advanced designs, like Meta and DeepSeek.

Analyst takeaway and outlook

The development of DeepSeek R1 enhances a crucial trend in the GenAI area: open-weight, cost-effective designs are ending up being feasible competitors to proprietary alternatives. This shift challenges market presumptions and forces AI service providers to reassess their value proposals.

1. End users and GenAI application suppliers are the most significant winners.

Cheaper, premium designs like R1 lower AI adoption expenses, benefiting both enterprises and consumers. Startups such as Perplexity and Lovable, which construct applications on foundation models, now have more choices and can significantly reduce API expenses (e.g., R1’s API is over 90% cheaper than OpenAI’s o1 model).

2. Most specialists agree the stock exchange overreacted, but the innovation is genuine.

While significant AI stocks dropped sharply after R1’s release (e.g., NVIDIA and Microsoft down 18% and 7.5%, respectively), many experts view this as an overreaction. However, DeepSeek R1 does mark a real breakthrough in expense effectiveness and openness, setting a precedent for future competitors.

3. The dish for developing top-tier AI models is open, speeding up competitors.

DeepSeek R1 has actually proven that releasing open weights and a detailed methodology is assisting success and caters to a growing open-source neighborhood. The AI landscape is continuing to move from a couple of dominant proprietary gamers to a more competitive market where new entrants can build on existing breakthroughs.

4. Proprietary AI service providers face increasing pressure.

Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere must now differentiate beyond raw model performance. What remains their competitive moat? Some may move towards enterprise-specific solutions, while others could check out hybrid company designs.

5. AI infrastructure suppliers deal with blended potential customers.

Cloud computing suppliers like AWS and Microsoft Azure still gain from design training but face pressure as inference relocations to edge devices. Meanwhile, AI chipmakers like NVIDIA might see weaker need for high-end GPUs if more models are trained with less resources.

6. The GenAI market remains on a strong growth path.

Despite interruptions, AI spending is anticipated to broaden. According to IoT Analytics’ Generative AI Market Report 2025-2030, worldwide spending on structure designs and platforms is predicted to grow at a CAGR of 52% through 2030, driven by enterprise adoption and ongoing efficiency gains.

Final Thought:

DeepSeek R1 is not just a technical milestone-it signals a shift in the AI market’s economics. The recipe for building strong AI designs is now more widely available, making sure higher competition and faster innovation. While exclusive models need to adapt, AI application companies and end-users stand to benefit a lot of.

Disclosure

Companies mentioned in this article-along with their products-are utilized as examples to showcase market advancements. No business paid or got favoritism in this short article, and it is at the discretion of the expert to choose which examples are used. IoT Analytics makes efforts to differ the companies and products mentioned to help shine attention to the numerous IoT and associated technology market players.

It is worth noting that IoT Analytics may have business relationships with some business mentioned in its articles, as some business certify IoT Analytics marketing research. However, for privacy, IoT Analytics can not disclose specific relationships. Please contact compliance@iot-analytics.com for any concerns or issues on this front.

More details and additional reading

Are you thinking about discovering more about Generative AI?

Generative AI Market Report 2025-2030

A 263-page report on the enterprise Generative AI market, incl. market sizing & projection, competitive landscape, end user adoption, trends, obstacles, and more.

Download the sample to find out more about the report structure, choose definitions, select data, extra data points, patterns, and more.

Already a subscriber? View your reports here →

Related posts

You may likewise be interested in the following short articles:

AI 2024 in evaluation: The 10 most significant AI stories of the year
What CEOs talked about in Q4 2024: Tariffs, reshoring, and agentic AI
The industrial software market landscape: 7 key stats entering into 2025
Who is winning the cloud AI race? Microsoft vs. AWS vs. Google

Related publications

You may likewise have an interest in the following reports:

Industrial Software Landscape 2024-2030
Smart Factory Adoption Report 2024
Global Cloud Projects Report and Database 2024

Register for our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn to remain updated on the current patterns shaping the IoT markets. For total enterprise IoT coverage with access to all of IoT Analytics’ paid material & reports, including devoted analyst time, take a look at the Enterprise subscription.