Startups are becoming wary of building on OpenAI's platform due to the significant risk of OpenAI launching competing applications (e.g., Sora for video), rendering their products obsolete. This "platform risk" is pushing developers toward neutral providers like Anthropic or open-source models to protect their 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.

The "AI wrapper" concern is mitigated by a multi-model strategy. A startup can integrate the best models from various providers for different tasks, creating a superior product. A platform like OpenAI is incentivized to only use its own models, creating a durable advantage for the startup.

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 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.

OpenAI has seen no cannibalization from its open source model releases. The use cases, customer profiles, and immense difficulty of operating inference at scale create a natural separation. Open source serves different needs and helps grow the entire AI ecosystem, which benefits the platform leader.

AI drastically accelerates the ability of incumbents and competitors to clone new products, making early traction and features less defensible. For seed investors, this means the traditional "first-mover advantage" is fragile, shifting the investment thesis heavily towards the quality and adaptability of the founding team.

Despite its early dominance, OpenAI's internal "Code Red" in response to competitors like Google's Gemini and Anthropic demonstrates a critical business lesson. An early market lead is not a guarantee of long-term success, especially in a rapidly evolving field like artificial intelligence.

As the market leader, OpenAI has become risk-averse to avoid media backlash. This has “damaged the product,” making it overly cautious and less useful. Meanwhile, challengers like Google have adopted a risk-taking posture, allowing them to innovate faster. This shows how a defensive mindset can cede ground to hungrier competitors.

Companies are becoming wary of feeding their unique data and customer queries into third-party LLMs like ChatGPT. The fear is that this trains a potential future competitor. The trend will shift towards running private, open-source models on their own cloud instances to maintain a competitive moat and ensure data privacy.

Investing in startups directly adjacent to OpenAI is risky, as they will inevitably build those features. A smarter strategy is backing "second-order effect" companies applying AI to niche, unsexy industries that are outside the core focus of top AI researchers.

Platform Risk Drives Startups Away From OpenAI | RiffOn