Aaron Levie argues the AI market will generate tens of trillions in value. In this context, even with strong competitors like Google and Anthropic, there's ample room for multiple massive companies. Current competitive battles are just "little skirmishes" on the path to a much larger prize, justifying OpenAI's massive valuation.
Related Insights
Founders Fund, a firm known for its concentrated "monopoly thesis," has invested in three competing AI labs: OpenAI, xAI (via SpaceX), and Anthropic. This deviation from their typical strategy suggests a belief that the AI market will evolve into a differentiated oligopoly with multiple winners, rather than a single winner-take-all monopoly.
Unlike banking, the AI industry is fiercely competitive. With at least five major frontier model companies, the failure of one would simply lead to its market share being absorbed by rivals. This healthy competition makes the idea of a federal bailout for any single AI firm, such as OpenAI, nonsensical as none are "too big to fail."
Michael Burry's comparison of OpenAI to Netscape is apt regarding market share erosion due to intense competition. However, the AI market is expanding exponentially. Unlike the browser market of the 90s, OpenAI can lose market share percentage yet still see massive absolute revenue and usage growth.
The AI industry is not a winner-take-all market. Instead, it's a dynamic "leapfrogging" race where competitors like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic constantly surpass each other with new models. This prevents a single monopoly and encourages specialization, with different models excelling in areas like coding or current events.
Despite the power of large foundation models from OpenAI and Anthropic, specialized AI companies like Cursor are succeeding. This suggests the AI market is a rapidly expanding pie, not a winner-take-all environment, where "transcendent" companies with superior product execution can capture significant value.
Anthropic's and OpenAI's massive revenue forecasts ($300B+ combined) aren't about displacing existing software spend. The core bet is that AI will capture a large portion of the trillion-dollar consulting and services budget, dramatically expanding the total addressable market for technology.
The enormous financial losses reported by AI leaders like OpenAI are not typical startup burn rates. They reflect a belief that the ultimate prize is an "Oracle or Genie," an outcome so transformative that the investment becomes an all-or-nothing, existential bet for tech giants.
OpenAI is caught in a strategic trap. It's being attacked "from above" by giants like Google (Alphabet) who can leverage a massive built-in user base. Simultaneously, it's being attacked "from below" by competitors like Anthropic, who are successfully capturing the lucrative enterprise market, putting OpenAI's valuation at risk.
Countering the idea of a zero-sum SaaS market, Box CEO Aaron Levie argues that AI agents create net-new value. By performing complex knowledge work on existing data (like analyzing contracts), agents allow software platforms to capture budget previously allocated to human labor, thus expanding the total addressable market.
Conventional venture capital wisdom of 'winner-take-all' may not apply to AI applications. The market is expanding so rapidly that it can sustain multiple, fast-growing, highly valuable companies, each capturing a significant niche. For VCs, this means huge returns don't necessarily require backing a monopoly.
