> I think OpenAI is going to be bigger than Microsoft in market cap within the next 3 years.

I am yet to see how a one-legged business model with just a single product (that is not crude oil), without a plan and money is going to become sustainable. Oh yeah, maybe they'll finally make money on those autonomous lethal weapons. That sounds the easiest.

▲

aurareturn a day ago | parent [-]

Sure. I'll give you a basic plan without any insider knowledge on OpenAI.

First, OpenAI and Anthropic are the leaders in model capabilities. Google is a close 3rd but 3rd nonetheless.

Second, ChatGPT likely has about 1 billion active users right now. I think ads on ChatGPT will surpass even Google search ads in the future. There will be a class of users who will never pay for ChatGPT subscriptions and that's ok. Meta and Google are two of the most profitable companies in history who almost rely solely on free users for their cash cows. "Ask ChatGPT" is already "google it" for the masses.

Third, there is so much untapped revenue potential from science, medicine field that OpenAI can eventually own with Anthropic. Microsoft stands no chance here since they can't build competing models.

Fourth, I can easily see ChatGPT morphing into agents for consumers and people will pay for them. AI is moving up the value chain fast. I don't see any reason why consumers won't pay for ChatGPT but will pay for Netflix.

Just some basic ideas based on public knowledge. I'm sure there are plenty more.

I'm not going to bet my house that OpenAI will become bigger than Microsoft in 3 years, but I'll put down a few hundred dollars on this bet.

▲

niam a day ago | parent | next [-]

I don't discount this as a possibility but my impression is that the OpenAI brand isn't very sticky.

Internet Explorer being pre-installed on Windows devices didn't prevent it from being demolished by newcomer Chrome throughout the 2010s. Now we're looking at a product that's even less integrated, and whose value is exposed through universal interfaces (human language, images, etc.).

If OpenAI succeeds, I imagine that remarkably little of it will have come from the brand. But subtracting the first-mover brand advantage: they can either compete on the frontier, which seems difficult and bears potentially diminishing returns (particularly wrt to distillation); or compete as a commodity, which I imagine cannot justify their valuation/spend.

It seems very uphill of a battle.

▲

fragmede 21 hours ago | parent [-]

For people that use ChatGPT the same way you do, yeah it's not. For people in the throes of AI psychosis who've named their ChatGPT and have a deep relationship with it, switching to a newer model from OpenAI is an issue, nevermind switching to a different model from a different company.

	▲	niam 21 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I considered that but I don't see it being very impactful. It presumes a user who cares enough about "their" ChatGPT that they can't move from a particular model provider, but simultaneously does not care enough that model providers themselves have a financial motivation to shoo users onto their newer and more efficient models. The transition from GPT4 to GPT5 was not well recieved among this crowd -- nevermind that I think this crowd is pretty small (comparatively) to begin with. I just don't imagine you can build a business on that sliver of a sliver, much less one that justifies OpenAI's spending.
	▲	d2ssa 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Most people dont give a hoot about that, they have much more interesting stuff going on in life.

▲

d2ssa 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Third, there is so much untapped revenue potential from science, medicine field that OpenAI can eventually own with Anthropic. "

Lol... yeah. They are not even looking like a going-concern long enough at this rate, let alone that.