> The near billion users OpenAI has is actually a real moat and might translate into decent chunk of revenue.

> My wife, for example, uses ChatGPT on a daily basis, but has found no reason to try anything else.

Is she paying for it? Because as we have seen repeatedly in the past, paid products whither and die when Microsoft bundles a default replacement.

You need to provide a really good reason why this time its different.

▲

junipertea an hour ago | parent [-]

I believe specifically for Microsoft, they did bundle a default replacement for chatGPT in a lot of different places (Bing chat, Copilot) which use OpenAI models! But the end product is notably worse than native interface. There is a bare-minimum-level of usability required.

For chat apps, good enough is good enough. For something as universally useful and easy to use as ChatGPT, the bar is higher. I don't want to comment on the financial feasibility, but whatever Microsoft put out has been a complete flop even when free, making ChatGPT $8 subscription seem worth it in comparison

	▲	lelanthran an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> But the end product is notably worse than native interface. That was my point - a lot of superior products were eaten by poor bundled replacements. Last I checked, copilot has more users than ChatGPT simply because users are using it from within Excel, Word, Outlook and Teams, without even knowing that they are using copilot. It's bundled into Windows. Right now, copilot is more useful to users than ChatGPT because it is embedded into their workflows.
	▲	akie an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		ChatGPT and all the competitors have the exact same UI and UX.