My hunch is that in five years we'll look back and see current OpenAI as something like a 1970's VAX system. Once PCs could do most of what they could, nobody wanted a VAX anymore. I have a hard time imagining that all the big players today will survive that shift. (And if that particular shift doesn't materialize, it's so early in the game; some other equally disruptive thing will.)
My wife, for example, uses ChatGPT on a daily basis, but has found no reason to try anything else. There are no network effects for sure, but people have hundreds and thousands on conversation on these apps that can't be easily moved elsewhere. Understandable that it would be hard to get majority of these free users to pay for anything, and hence, advertising seems a good bet. You couldn't have thought of a more contextual way of plugging in a paid product.
I think OpenAI has better chance to winning on the consumer side than everyone else. Of course, would that much up against hundreds of billions of dollars in capex remains to be seen.
Cultural defaults seem unchangeable but then suddenly everyone knows, that's everyone knows, that OpenAI is passé.
OpenAI has a real chance to blow their lead, ending up in a hellish no-man's land by trying to please everyone: Not cool enough for normies, not safe enough for business, not radical enough for techies. Pick a lane or perish.
Not owning their own infrastructure, and being propped up by financial / valuation tricks are more red flags.
Being a first mover doesn't guarantee getting to the golden goose, remember MySpace.
I think you're underestimating how fickle consumers are, and how much their choices are based on fashion and emotion. A couple more of these, and OpenAI will find itself relegated to the kids' table with Grok and Perplexity. https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/08/15/1121900/gpt4o-gr...
People used to suggest this about MySpace.
Sure it's 'sticky' at least a little, but it's not a moat. A moat is a show stopper like they own you.
Friendster, MySpace, Facebook
Netscape, ie, chrome
Icq, aim, MSN messenger, a million other chat apps
First mover advantage doesn't last long
Very high chance that the winner in five years is a company that does not yet exist
Ads might change that. If we know anything, nobody beats Google with ad based monetization. OAI is absolutely correct to be scared.
That's ok, we use ChatGPT only for coding. We should be good, right? Umm, no. They already explicitly expressed the intention to take a percentage of your revenue if you shipped something with ChatGPT, so even the tech guys aren't safe.
"As intelligence moves into scientific research, drug discovery, energy systems, and financial modeling, new economic models will emerge. Licensing, IP-based agreements, and outcome-based pricing will share in the value created. That is how the internet evolved. Intelligence will follow the same path."
"Intelligence will follow the same path."
https://openai.com/index/a-business-that-scales-with-the-val...
So yes, OpenAI has the best chance to win on the consumer side than anyone else. But, that's not necessarily a good thing (and the OpenAI fanboys will hate me for pointing this out).
My mum, and probably nearly a billion other users, could probably imagine step 1 but not connect to step 2 beyond copy-paste. Most people are still out here sending screen shots of their phones instead of just copying a link or hitting "share" on the image.
I just asked it to build me a searchable indexed downloaded version of all my conversations. One shot, one html page, everything exported (json files).
I’m sure I could ask Claude to import it. I don’t see the moat.
Honest question I have this issue a lot with AI claims. Nobody verifies the output.
it's not useless, although it used to be more useful than it is now.
> My wife, for example, uses ChatGPT on a daily basis, but has found no reason to try anything else.
Is she paying for it? Because as we have seen repeatedly in the past, paid products whither and die when Microsoft bundles a default replacement.
You need to provide a really good reason why this time its different.
For chat apps, good enough is good enough. For something as universally useful and easy to use as ChatGPT, the bar is higher. I don't want to comment on the financial feasibility, but whatever Microsoft put out has been a complete flop even when free, making ChatGPT $8 subscription seem worth it in comparison
That was my point - a lot of superior products were eaten by poor bundled replacements.
Last I checked, copilot has more users than ChatGPT simply because users are using it from within Excel, Word, Outlook and Teams, without even knowing that they are using copilot. It's bundled into Windows.
Right now, copilot is more useful to users than ChatGPT because it is embedded into their workflows.
Even in the context of the original quote the price is only "irrational" in the eyes of the person trying (and failing) to play the market. "But you can't do that, that doesn't make any sense!" spoken by a person who has failed to fully grasp the situation.
But you can bet there was more economic foresight going on at Google than OpenAI.
I wonder what percentage of its users know what the GPT stands for, or even thought about it for a second?
chatgpt is generic (as in, no prior meaning attached, except for the few people in the world who understand what GPT stands for). It's simple - even a non-english speaker can say it easily, and doesn't require one to be native to know how to pronounce it (this is a difficult concept for a native english speaker to grok).
These features makes for a good name.
I personally prefer claude models for all my work. If I were them I would be very worried. They are never giving us AGI and I am skeptical they are worth .5 trillion. Their cash burn is insane. Once ads and price hikes come, people will migrate to companies that can still afford to subsidize (like Google).
Plus I heard they lowered projections recently? Sam honestly comes off as a grifter.
But I have noticed that everyone seems to be using ChatGPT as the generic term for AI. They will google something and then refer to the Gemini summary as "ChatGPT says...". I tried to find out what model/version one of my friends was using when he was talking about ChatGPT and it was "the free one that comes with Android"... So Gemini.
It turned out the only reason ChatGPT was because it is free for small enough volume usage. My suggestion to see what Claude had to say instead was met with "huh, you have to pay for it?". It's not like these are people that can't afford $20 per month for a subscription, but it might be that these assistants aren't even worth that for typical "normie" use cases.
I would guess OAI has no moat or stickiness beyond what governments and private companies will do to keep it afloat through equity and circular financing. Good enough AI is all most need, and they need it at the cheapest cost basis possible with the most convenient access.
Google will probably win on most of these fronts unless a coalition is formed to actively fight google at the business/government level. But, absent that, it will win out over oai and oai will probably bleed to death trying to become profitable.. whenever that happens. You'll likely see their talent and corresponding salaries shrink massively along this journey.
ChapGPT has become the AI verb, and in the consumer space it is not getting dethroned.
1) the opportunities for vertical integration are huge. Anthropic originally said they didn’t want to build IDEs, then realized the pivot to Claude Code was available to them. Likewise when one of these companies can gobble up Legal, Medical, etc why would they let companies like Harvey capture the margins?
2) oss models are 6-12 months behind the frontier because of distillation. If labs close their models the gap will widen. Once vertical integration kicks off, the distillation cost becomes higher, and the benefit of opening up generic APIs becomes lower.
I can imagine worlds where things don’t turn out this way, but I think folks are generally underrating the possibilities here.
It’s ironic, if the promise of AGI were realized, all knowledge companies, including AI companies, become worthless
Everyone, it turns out. Same with Google. Same with YouTube. Same with Instagram, and the rest of the web.
Once people become dependent on ChatGPT (as they already are) watching a 30 second ad in the middle of a session will become second nature.
Google and Youtube are preinstalled everywhere. Instagrams like 10 minutes old and has a major competitor in TikTok that they had to have eliminated/captured by the US government.
People wouldnt stay with Netflix if there was a cheap, legal alternative with the same content library.
i'm just so surprised they'd use chatgpt to do this, when it's quite as easily (and perhaps faster) to use google translate.
And so this goes back to my theory that open AI's execution is basically to get it itself in a position where the market cannot afford to have it implode. Basically, it wants to or it needs to be too big to fail. And I think we're already kind of seeing the politicization, if you will, sort of the rocket race between two superpowers or large powers on the AI front, and I think that Might be a viable strategy.
As margins collapse capex will collapse. Unfortunately valuations have become so tied to AI hype any reduction in capex will signal maybe the hype has gotten ahead of itself, meaning valuations have gotten ahead of themselves. So capex keeps escalating.
None of this takes into account the hoarding effects at play with regards to GPU acquisition. It's really a dangerous situation the industry is caught in.
Companies use to hoard talent. Now they are hoarding compute, RAM, and GPUs.
Deepseek showed that there are possibly less expensive ways to train, meaning the future eye watering expenses may not happen.
Bigger models may not scale. The future may be federations of smaller expert models. Chat GPTX doesn’t need to know everything about mental health, it just needs to recognize the the Sigmund von Shrink mental health model needs to answer some of my questions.
For the humanity perspective, this doom is very optimistic. It says that these LLMs currently disrupting the platforms cannot themselves be the next platforms.
Maybe no one will have 'the ability to make people do something that they don't want to do' sort of power with this next stage in computing.
Sounds good to me.
I would argue chatgpt is in the top 10 products of all time with regard to product market fit.
I hear this, but every time I look the platforms have captured another use case that the startup ecosystem built (eg images, knowledge summarization, coding, music).
The sector is already littered with the corpses of the innovators that got swallowed by the platforms’ aggressiveness to do it all.
From what I can see Anthropic's big bet is that they will solve computer use and be able to act as an autonomous agent. Not so sure how fast they will progress on that. OpenAI on the other hand - I have no idea what they are planning - all I'm reading is AI porn and ads.
Google seems to be lackluster at executing with Gemini but they are in the best position to win this whole thing - they have so much data (index of the web, youtube, maps) and so many ways to capitalize on the models - it's honestly shocking how bad they are at creating/monetizing AI products.
Many pundits think it's just a matter of scraping the internet and having a few ML scientists run ablation experiments to tune hyperparameters. That hasn't been true for over a year. The current requirements are more org-scale, more payoff from scale, more moat. The main legitimate competitive threat is adversarial distillation.
Many pundits also think that consumers don't want to pay a premium for small differences on the margin. That is very wrong-headed. I pay $200/month to a frontier lab because, even though it's only a few % higher in benchmark scores, it is 5x more useful on the margin.
Going from 85% to 90% is possibly 1/3 fewer errors or even higher, depending on the distribution of work you’re doing.
I think this is clearly wrong. Users provide lots of data useful for making the models better and that is already being leveraged today. It seems like network effects are likely in the future too. And they have several ways to get stickiness including memory.
I would love to dunk on this or something, but the lesson is that it's all about distribution.
Sama is really good at that, and also.. gotta give props for a lot of forward thinking like the orb, which now makes a lot of sense to me, as non-Apple/Google proof of personhood.
Personally I only see Google (Gemini), X (Grok) and the Chinese models having a chances to still be alive in 1-2 years.
Also, I liked Anthropic because they were focused a lot on safety, but after the Pentagon stuff, it seems like they dropped their focus on safety.
For me, the choice is ChatGPT, not for its Codex or other fancy tooling - just the chat. Not that Claude Code or Cowork is less important. Not that I like Codex over Claude Code.
First off, nonetheless open publishing stuff. Everything would have been trade secrets.
Next off no interoperable json apis instead binary APIs that are hard to integrate with and therefore sticky. Once you spent 3 or 4 months getting your MCP server setup, no way would you ever try to change to a different vendor!
The number of investors was much smaller so odds are you wouldn't have seen these crazy high salaries and you wouldn't have people running off to different companies left and right. (I know, .com boom, but the .com boom never saw 500k cash salaries...)
Imagine if Google hadn't published any papers about transformers or the attention paper had been an internal memo or heck just word2vec was only an internal library.
It has all been a net good for technological progress but not that good for the companies involved.
Obviously the costs have come down but if IBM felt like burning 100 Billion in 2012 I'm pretty sure they could have a similarly impressive chat bot. Just not sure how they would have ever recouped the revenue.
Though with some types of models (specifically voice) it has been discovered that a smaller high quality dataset is better than a giant dataset filled with errors.
The WH has said it hasn't approved any sales, but it's not clear China is buying, and it seem they are making good progress on their huawei ascend chips. If China is basiclly at parity on the full stack (silicon, framework, training, model), and it starts open weighting frontier models at $0.xx/M tokens, then yeah, moat issues all around one would imagine? Not surprised to see Anthropic complaining like this: https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... - but I don't know how you go back from it at this point?
I've never believed in Nvidia's moat, and it seems OpenAI's moat (research) has gone and surprisingly is no longer a priority for them.
To me it seems like the most obvious thing to do. More efficient models both make up for whatever you lost by using cheaper hardware and let you do more with the hardware you have than the competition can. By comparison the ever-growing-model strategy is a dead end.
it seem they are making good progress on their huawei ascend chips
Anything changes in between?
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/deepseeks-launch-new-ai-...
(^edit, I don't know for certain entirely is accurate - edit again, found a chinese source saying their image model is end to end ascend, or at least, domestic: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1994775762516080044 & https://www.guancha.cn/economy/2026_02_12_806895.shtml)
They've already found a better route. Buy it elsewhere e.g. in Singapore. Train their models there using Nvidia hardware.
Ship the result and fine tune back in China.
So "China" is and has always been buying it. No difference. The politics can keep raging.
That being said...
> The one place where OpenAI does have a clear lead today is in the user base: it has 8-900m users. The trouble is, there’re only ‘weekly active’ users: the vast majority even of people who already know what this is and know how to use it have not made it a daily habit. Only 5% of ChatGPT users are paying, and even US teens are much more likely to use this a few times a week or less than they are to use it multiple time a day.
This really props up the whole argument, because the author goes on to say that OpenAI's users are not really engaged. But is "only" 5% of users paying of a 8-900M user base really so inconsequential? What percentage of Meta's users are paying? Google's? I would be curious to see the author dig deeper here, because I am skeptical that this is really as bad as the author suggests.
Moving on to another section:
> If the next step is those new experiences, who does that, and why would it be OpenAI? The entire tech industry is trying to invent the second step of generative AI experiences - how can you plan for it to be you? How do you compete with this chart - with every entrepreneur in Silicon Valley?
Er, are any of these startups training foundation models? No? Then maybe that is how you compete? I suppose the author would say that the foundation model isn't doing much for OpenAI's engagement metrics (and therefore revenue), but I am not sure I agree there.
Still, really good article. I think it really crystalizes the anti-OpenAI argument and it gives me a lot of interesting things to think about.
The advertiser based business model for those companies makes your question/thought process here problematic for me. Historically speaking Google and "Meta" (Facebook) were primarily advertising provider companies. They provided billboards (space and time on the web page in front of an end-user) to people who were willing to buy tht space and time on the billboard. The "free access" end-users would always end up seeing said billboards, which is how they ended up "paying" for the service.
So most of Meta/Google end-users were "paying" users. They were being subsidised by the advertising customers paying for the end-users (who were forced to view adverts). The end-users paid with interruption to the service by an advert. [0]
In that context it feels a little like you're comparing apples to dave's left foot, as OpenAI hasn't had that with advertising ............ historically [1].
--
[0]: yes ad-blockers, yes more diverse revenue income streams over the years like with phones, yes this is simplified yadayada
[1]: excluding government etc. ~bailouts~ investments as not the same as advertising subsidies, but you could argue it's doing the same thing
But honestly, if OpenAI can't figure out ads given all their data and ability, they deserve to fail. :P
The difference is in the unit economics. OpenAI has to spend massively per free user it serves. The others you mentioned have SaaS economics where the marginal cost of onboarding and serving each non-paying user is essentially zero while also gaining money from these free users via advertising. Hence, the free users are actually a net positive rather than an endless money sink.
Keep also in mind that AI has always been, and will always be, a commodity. The moment you start forcing people to convert into paying customers is the moment they jump ship at scale.
Just something to keep in mind.
Anthropic is in favor with developers and generally tech people, while OpenAi / Gemini are more commonly used by regular folks. And Grok, well, you know…
We have yet to see who’s winning in the “creative space”, probably OpenAI.
As these positionings cristallize, each company is likely going to double down on their user’s communities, like Apple did when specifically targeting creative/artsy people, instead of cranking general models that aren’t significantly better at anything.
Claude: Programmers
ChatGPT: LGBTQ/Liberals, with a lot of censorship
Grok: Joe Rogan