Bill Gurley argues that a sophisticated defensive move for giants like Amazon or Apple would be to collaboratively support a powerful open-source AI model. This counterintuitive strategy prevents a single competitor (like Microsoft/OpenAI) from gaining an insurmountable proprietary advantage that threatens their core businesses.
Related Insights
OpenAI embraces the 'platform paradox' by selling API access to startups that compete directly with its own apps like ChatGPT. The strategy is to foster a broad ecosystem, believing that enabling competitors is necessary to avoid losing the platform race entirely.
Tech giants like Google and Meta are positioned to offer their premium AI models for free, leveraging their massive ad-based business models. This strategy aims to cut off OpenAI's primary revenue stream from $20/month subscriptions. For incumbents, subsidizing AI is a strategic play to acquire users and boost market capitalization.
OpenAI, the initial leader in generative AI, is now on the defensive as competitors like Google and Anthropic copy and improve upon its core features. This race demonstrates that being first offers no lasting moat; in fact, it provides a roadmap for followers to surpass the leader, creating a first-mover disadvantage.
The current trend toward closed, proprietary AI systems is a misguided and ultimately ineffective strategy. Ideas and talent circulate regardless of corporate walls. True, defensible innovation is fostered by openness and the rapid exchange of research, not by secrecy.
The AI revolution may favor incumbents, not just startups. Large companies possess vast, proprietary datasets. If they quickly fine-tune custom LLMs with this data, they can build a formidable competitive moat that an AI startup, starting from scratch, cannot easily replicate.
Apple isn't trying to build the next frontier AI model. Instead, their strategy is to become the primary distribution channel by compressing and running competitors' state-of-the-art models directly on devices. This play leverages their hardware ecosystem to offer superior privacy and performance.
The choice between open and closed-source AI is not just technical but strategic. For startups, feeding proprietary data to a closed-source provider like OpenAI, which competes across many verticals, creates long-term risk. Open-source models offer "strategic autonomy" and prevent dependency on a potential future rival.
Google can dedicate nearly all its resources to AI product development because its core business handles infrastructure and funding. In contrast, OpenAI must constantly focus on fundraising and infrastructure build-out. This mirrors the dynamic where a focused Facebook outmaneuvered a distracted MySpace, highlighting a critical incumbent advantage.
While making powerful AI open-source creates risks from rogue actors, it is preferable to centralized control by a single entity. Widespread access acts as a deterrent based on mutually assured destruction, preventing any one group from using AI as a tool for absolute power.
Contrary to early narratives, a proprietary dataset is not the primary moat for AI applications. True, lasting defensibility is built by deeply integrating into an industry's ecosystem—connecting different stakeholders, leveraging strategic partnerships, and using funding velocity to build the broadest product suite.
