Now that OpenAI is starting to talk about ads and allowing "erotic" content, I feel more comfortable in my prediction that not only have OpenAI never turned a profit, they never will. They will be consumed by Microsoft or crash the market so hard it's not even funny. The technology will survive, and it will be useful, but OpenAI as a company is done.
Three generations of Twitter leadership couldn’t make ads on that platform profitable and that exposes far more useful user specific information than ChatGPT.
The hubris is incredible.
More and more OpenAI is drawing parallels to the Danish scandal of IT Factory. Self-proclaimed world leading innovation and technology in the front, financial sorcery in the back.
> There’s a famous Sam Altman interview from 2019 in which he explained OpenAI’s revenue model [1] :
>> The honest answer is we have no idea. We have never made any revenue. We have no current plans to make revenue. We have no idea how we may one day generate revenue. We have made a soft promise to investors that once we’ve built this sort of generally intelligent system, basically, we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return for you. [audience laughter] It sounds like an episode of Silicon Valley, it really does, I get it. You can laugh, it’s all right. But it is what I actually believe is going to happen.
> It really is the greatest business plan in the history of capitalism: “We will create God and then ask it for money.” Perfect in its simplicity. As a connoisseur of financial shenanigans, I of course have my own hopes for what the artificial superintelligence will come up with. “I know what every stock price will be tomorrow, so let’s get to day-trading,” would be a good one. “I can tell people what stocks to buy, so let’s get to pump-and-dumping.” “I can destroy any company, so let’s get to short selling.” “I know what every corporate executive is thinking about, so let’s get to insider trading.” That sort of thing. As a matter of science fiction it seems pretty trivial for an omniscient superintelligence to find cool ways make money. “Charge retail customers $20 per month to access the superintelligence,” what, no, obviously that’s not the answer.
> On a pure science-fiction suspension-of-disbelief basis, this business plan is perfect and should not need any updating until they finish building the superintelligent AI. Paying one billion dollars for a 0.2% stake in whatever God comes up with is a good trade. But in the six years since announcing this perfect business plan, Sam Altman has learned [2] that it will cost at least a few trillion dollars to build the super-AI, and it turns out that the supply of science-fiction-suspension-of-disbelief capital is really quite large but not trillions of dollars.
> [1] At about 31:49 in the video. A bit later he approvingly cites the South Park “underpants gnome” meme.
> [2] Perhaps a better word is “decided.” I wrote the other day about Altman’s above-consensus capital spending plans: “'The deals have surprised some competitors who have far more modest projections of their computing costs,’ because he is better at this than they are. If you go around saying ‘I am going to build transformative AI efficiently,’ how transformative can it be? If you go around saying ‘I am going to need 1,000 new nuclear plants to build my product,’ everyone knows that it will be a big deal.”
Not sure if increased availability of LLM porn or the gradual erosion of LLMs with ads and sponsored content would be the greater evil on a societal level. Neither is particularly great. But they will certainly drive shareholder value
There's a mechanism here similar to a Laffer Curve: Charge too much, they lose; charge too little, they lose. OAI needs to strike a delicate balance vs. surging low-cost competition.
So the math is probably harder than it seems.
If Microsoft were just Windows, Teams, Azure, Bing and whatever it is, Microsoft would actually feel like a competitor for firms like Canonical or Red Hat or SUSE which happens to be big but nothing special relative to the others, whereas it now, with with this very public service feels like a behemoth.
Although I don’t particularly like their cloud services they are undeniably an important part of Microsoft’s business. (And they also own a large chunk of the gaming industry nowadays).
They’re shuttering half their studios, cancelling half their games, and firing game devs by the thousands as they hand halo over to PlayStation lol. You’re technically right but they clearly aren’t taking that part of their business seriously anymore. IIRC Gamepass has plateaued on subscribers for years now even prior to their very aggressive price hikes over the last 18 months.
I saw an article the other day that said Microsoft is telling developers they have to have a 30% return on their games, which is almost double the industry standard. That’s just absurd.
Edit: worth mentioning that you have people openly speculating at this point that they might not even make another Xbox. I’m not quite in that camp, but I also think it is a distinct possibility given the back slide they are clearly in right own when it comes to gaming. Fun fact: It’s been 4 console cycles, almost 25 years, since we saw a major player drop out.
I did hear the speculation about Xbox as well and I hope it's not true. I quite like the Xbox as a console (Series X was the first one I bought, used to be on PlayStation before that). Competition is good for the console space, and Nintendo and PlayStation aren't really competitors IMO. The audience for Switch and PS/Xbox isn't the same.
Suddenly Microsoft has gone from being some software to being everywhere. I know that Azure is huge, but you don't see Azure.
Windows competitors are OSX (and the very good Apple hardware), Linux (which thanks to Valve is gaining users at an increased rate).
Teams competes against Slack/Discord
Azure competes against AWS/GCP.
Bing "competes" against Google Search
While they do have a share of each (and a big share of the desktop) they don't really have anywhere they can grow, they've filled their existing niches and are competing with other equally sized companies in all of them.
So spaffing some cash on AI on the off chance it pays off down the line might look smart.
Hell if AI does pay off then they look good and if it doesn't, it'll look bad for everyone who invested and they can at least shrug off the cash hit.
Profit is what you have when you have no confidence in how to reinvest what you earn already.
Megacorps control so much of them that the financial side has so little volatility.
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter3/transportat...
Expect lots of hand wavy “non-GAAP” numbers pushed by leadership trying to gloss over their failed AI investments.
That’s earnings call speak for “If you ignore the pile of your money we lost with bad AI investment decisions, we’ve had a good quarter. Moving on…”
IANAA so I don't know how true that is. Just wanting to point out that I don't think you're responding to the key point of the article.
"They just write it off."
"Write it off what?"
"Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything."
Same reason why seemingly every CEO on the planet is making hand wavy statements about how their company is leading with AI and it will revolutionize their industry, and yet almost nobody is willing to break out this amazing stuff in their P&L. Funny how that works.
"How Microsoft has managed to avoid disclosing such basic details is baffling. The company in its financial reports identifies OpenAl as an equity-method investment. That means OpenAl, by definition, is a related party of Microsoft under the accounting rules. Microsoft, however, doesn't identify OpenAl in its financial reports as a related party, and doesn't say anything about its transactions with OpenAl in its related-party disclosures."
26.5 Common related party transactions
In order to comply with the related party disclosure requirements, a reporting entity must identify all of its transactions with related parties.[…]
26.5.1 Disclosure of related party equity method investments
Equity method investees are, by definition, related parties of the equity holder.
That's why some analysts ignore most company-provided metrics and just focus on cash-flow. You need inside and outside of the house fudgers to mess with that metric.
Both are true in many cases. But to the extent companies are making major investments that are strategically correct but won’t make money for years, it’s still the right move to hide stuff in financial statements.
Markets don’t reward long term investments. Everything has to be short term, and if it’s not paying off instantly, short term investors get no value and want it stopped.
Net result: lots of PR about AI, but almost every company is incentivized to downplay it financially.
The AI investment bubble is almost entirely about making long-term, extremely expensive investments. That's what the gigantic datacenter build-out is about, not short-term investments and short-term returns. They're telling everybody, persistently, that they're making huge long-term bets, and the market is rewarding them like crazy. See: Oracle's run due to long-term bets on AI (it's certainly not short-term results causing the stock to do that, their short-term growth has been mediocre).
Amazon for two decades repeatedly told investors they were making extremely expensive, long-term investments in build-out (eg their fulfillment build-out era), where the primary payoff would be far into the future. The market bought into the long-term on the basis that it was attached to Bezos at the center (that he'd be there to deliver that long-term result). The same is true about Elon Musk with Tesla: they have endlessly made outlandish long-term proclamation to drive their stock. Tesla: robot super business, self-driving taxi business, et al - these are 10-20-30 year long-term claims by Tesla and the market has aggressively rewarded it. That's because they think Musk will/might be there to guide it to actuality. In most cases investors don't buy in because they know the CEO & team won't be around even seven years from now.
Markets (investors) reward long-term if they can be made to believe in the long-term. The issue is that most companies are not believable on long-term statements, they don't have a leadership that will be around for any long-term delivery. Buffett, Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg were/are long-term attachments so the market has been willing to buy in on various long-term bets.
That seems like a really bad deal. And that was probably at the time when Microsoft had the most leverage to make a deal. Their subsequent deals would make sense to be worse.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/23/trump-white-house-east-wing-...
IlikeKitties•2h ago
irl_zebra•2h ago