In a September 30 analysis, TechCrunch compares how Meta's Muse and Instinct could pay for the work their consumer assistants perform.
Subscription demand is only part of the calculation. The article contrasts paying-user estimates with the cost of operating models, while noting that different studies report substantially different levels of adoption. Those figures should not be combined as though they measured the same population in the same way.
Muse has potential support from Meta’s advertising business. Instinct’s proposed route includes taking a share of purchases made through its agent, while avoiding the cost of training a frontier model itself. Neither route is equivalent to collecting a fixed subscription from every active user.
The analysis argues that serving consumers can remain expensive even at large scale. That is a business argument, not an audited verdict on either app’s profitability.