|
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It seems that the old deal was exclusivity to MSFT with revenue share, and now no exclusivity, no revenue share. Bear in mind that MSFT have rights to OpenAI IP (as well as owning ~30% of them). The only reason they were giving revenue share was in return for exclusivity. |
| |
| ▲ | borski 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a really common way to structure exclusivity; we did the same thing whenever customers requested it (and we couldn’t get rid of it entirely). Charge for the exclusivity explicitly. If they wanted named exclusivity rather than general exclusivity, we would charge a somewhat smaller amount for each competitor they wanted exclusivity from. They could give up exclusivity at any time. That was precisely how we structured our deal with Azure, back in 2014-2016 or so. |
|
|
| ▲ | deaux 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Azure was the only non-OpenAI provider that was allowed to provide OpenAI models. The comparison here is with Anthropic whose models are on both GCP and AWS (and technically also Azure though I think that might just be billing passthrough to Anthropic). |
|
| ▲ | Handy-Man 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I suppose continue to host until the 2030/32 that they have access to but not share revenues when they use those models for their products like the bazillions of Copilots. |
