Ben Thompson's analysis suggests OpenAI is in a precarious position. By aggregating massive user demand but avoiding the optimal aggregator business model (advertising), it weakens its defense against Google, which can leverage its immense, ad-funded structural advantages in compute, data, and R&D to overwhelm OpenAI.
Related Insights
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.
According to Ben Thompson's Aggregation Theory, OpenAI's real moat is its 800 million users, not its technology. By monetizing only through subscriptions instead of ads, OpenAI fails to maximize user engagement and data capture, leaving the door open for Google's resource-heavy, ad-native approach to win.
While competitors focus on subscription models for their AI tools, Google's primary strategy is to leverage its core advertising business. By integrating sponsored results into its AI-powered search summaries, Google is the first to turn on an ad-based revenue model for generative AI at scale, posing a significant threat to subscription-reliant players like OpenAI.
While OpenAI has strong brand recognition with ChatGPT, it's strategically vulnerable. Giants like Google and Microsoft can embed superior or equivalent AI into existing products with massive user bases and established monetization channels. OpenAI lacks these, making its long-term dominance questionable as technical differentiation erodes.
Google can afford to offer its LLM for free, creating immense pricing pressure on competitors like OpenAI. This strategy aims to eliminate competition by making their business models unprofitable, securing a monopoly for Google before it begins to monetize.
While OpenAI has a significant head start, its position is precarious. Swisher suggests it mirrors Netscape, which pioneered the web browser but was ultimately crushed by an incumbent (Microsoft). Google, with its vast data and resources, is better positioned to win the AI war in the long run.
Google's strategy may be to offer its powerful AI models for free or at a significant loss. As a trillion-dollar company, it can sustain these losses indefinitely, forcing smaller competitors like OpenAI into an "endless sea of red ink" until they collapse, thereby securing a market monopoly.
As competitors like Google's Gemini close the quality gap with ChatGPT, OpenAI loses its unique product advantage. This commoditization will force them to adopt advertising sooner than planned to sustain their massive operational costs and offer a competitive free product, despite claims of pausing such efforts.
The long-term monetization model for consumer LLMs is unlikely to be paid subscriptions. Instead, the market will probably shift toward free, ad- and commerce-supported models. OpenAI's challenge is to build these complex new revenue streams before its current subscription growth inevitably slows.
Despite its massive user base, OpenAI's position is precarious. It lacks true network effects, strong feature lock-in, and control over its cost base since it relies on Microsoft's infrastructure. Its long-term defensibility depends on rapidly building product ecosystems and its own infrastructure advantages.
