Unlike in the U.S., Chinese AI companies face a significant hurdle to profitability due to a cultural expectation that online services should be free. This forces companies like Alibaba and ByteDance into massive, costly giveaways to attract users. If one service starts charging, users will quickly migrate to free alternatives, making sustainable monetization a far greater challenge.
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.
Chinese AI leaders like Moonshot have lower valuations than US peers because they are often open-source. Unlike closed-source models (ChatGPT, Claude) that capture 100% of the value, open-source projects hope to capture just 10-20% through hosted services, leading to a "missing zero" in their funding rounds.
While US firms lead in cutting-edge AI, the impressive quality of open-source models from China is compressing the market. As these free models improve, more tasks become "good enough" for open source, creating significant pricing pressure on premium, closed-source foundation models from companies like OpenAI and Google.
China isn't giving away its AI models out of generosity. By making them open source, it encourages widespread adoption and dependency. Once users are locked into the ecosystem, China can monetize it, introduce ads, or simply lock down future, more advanced versions, giving it significant strategic leverage.
Instead of military action, China could destabilize the US tech economy by releasing high-quality, open-source AI models and chips for free. This would destroy the profitability and trillion-dollar valuations of American AI companies.
While the U.S. AI strategy pursues a 'winner-take-all' model leading to high profits, China's state-backed approach aims to commoditize AI. By spreading resources across many players to create a low-cost, replicable model for export, it structurally limits the potential for monopoly profits to accrue to shareholders.
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.
The stark contrast between niche paid apps and the trillion-dollar companies dominating the top free app charts highlights a critical insight for the AI race. An existing user base of billions, which companies like Google and Meta possess, is a more powerful competitive advantage than having a marginally better model.
Major AI players treat the market as a zero-sum, "winner-take-all" game. This triggers a prisoner's dilemma where each firm is incentivized to offer subsidized, unlimited-use pricing to gain market share, leading to a race to the bottom that destroys profitability for the entire sector and squeezes out smaller players.
The business model for powerful, free, open-source AI models from Chinese companies may not be direct profit. Instead, it could be a strategy to globally distribute an AI trained on a specific worldview, competing with American models on an ideological rather than purely commercial level.
