6 ms·

I agree that at its current rate of $20 per month and continuous cash burn, OpenAI’s model doesn’t seem sustainable. But the same could have been said about Goo

I agree that at its current rate of $20 per month and continuous cash burn, OpenAI’s model doesn’t seem sustainable. But the same could have been said about Google in its early days. Back then, Google spent heavily to index websites without a clear path to profitability—until it figured out how to monetize. Similarly, OpenAI will likely release more products to generate revenue. OpenAI has the potential to create the next groundbreaking innovation, like the iPhone. Who needs apps when the AI itself can handle everything?

VHRanger 2y ago
> Google spent heavily to index websites without a clear path to profitability Uh, they were advertising in 1999 already?
- patrickhogan1 2y ago
  Please read the academic paper by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, available at this link: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/10/28/the-academic-paper-that-started-google/ https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/10/28/the-academic-p... You might find their perspective on advertising surprising. Returning to my earlier point, please expand your argument about why OpenAI may fail. Let’s aim to elevate the discussion.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    I would say that this paper rather supports the point: the people who made Google knew from the get go that ads were one way to make money off it (even if they didn't like the notion). OpenAI, in contrast, still doesn't have any notion as to how to make it all profitable.
patrickhogan1 2y ago
If you’re going to downvote, please consider leaving a comment—I’d really value the feedback. I’d like to see more thoughtful discussion here. The debate often feels stuck between oversimplified takes like “It’s just a commodity” and “No, it’s a game changer!” Let’s assume for a moment that OpenAI operates as a commodity business but still figures out how to become profitable, even with small margins. After all, US Steel was a commodity and became hugely successful. Given these assumptions, why do you think OpenAI might not succeed? Let’s move the conversation forward.
lesuorac 2y ago
> Back then, Google spent heavily to index websites without a clear path to profitability [citation needed] Google's goal was always advertising just like every other search engine.
- wmf 2y ago
  Google didn't have ads until 2000. They strongly resisted banner ads (which were the only format at the time) until they invented contextual text ads.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    So, it took Google a whole year to display ads. That's really not the description of a company that is " without a clear path to profitability".
    - patrickhogan1 2y ago
      It’s fascinating to think about how long it took Google to fully embrace advertising. I completely agree with the previous posters point—Google strongly resisted ads, which were everywhere back then. Then they went full corporate and their real turning point, came in 2007 with their acquisition of DoubleClick, about 12 years after Larry Page and Sergey Brin famously claimed that advertising and search engines don’t mix. Now compare that to OpenAI. It launched in 2015, nine years ago, but ChatGPT didn’t arrive until 2022—less than two years ago. Google took over a decade to transform its core business with ads and figure out how to become a profit machine. Let's practice some intellectual humility and acknowledge that OpenAI still has time to work this out. History shows that even if it takes some time, that's perfectly fine.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - DannyBee 2y ago
      It would be more accurate to say it had no desired path to profitability. I have friends who interviewed in 1999, and all of them came away with the same view - they did not know how the company would make money. They all poked at this topic, and the founders were explicit they really did not want to sell ads. Two of them refused to join because they thought it would fail as a result[1]. So while they did end up doing that, it seems very clear they did not want to go that path if they could avoid it. If you have actual evidence that suggests this is not the case, rather than the random unsupported conjecture that it was "always their goal", i'd love to hear it! I've not met a single person who says anything but what i just said - it was not always their goal, they had no desire to do it. [1] Amusingly both ended up founding and selling companies for over 100m, so they did okay in the end despite theoretically missing a huge opportunity ;)

VHRanger 2y ago

> Google spent heavily to index websites without a clear path to profitability Uh, they were advertising in 1999 already?

patrickhogan1 2y ago
Please read the academic paper by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, available at this link: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/10/28/the-academic-paper-that-started-google/ https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/10/28/the-academic-p... You might find their perspective on advertising surprising. Returning to my earlier point, please expand your argument about why OpenAI may fail. Let’s aim to elevate the discussion.
- int_19h 2y ago
  I would say that this paper rather supports the point: the people who made Google knew from the get go that ads were one way to make money off it (even if they didn't like the notion). OpenAI, in contrast, still doesn't have any notion as to how to make it all profitable.

patrickhogan1 2y ago

If you’re going to downvote, please consider leaving a comment—I’d really value the feedback. I’d like to see more thoughtful discussion here. The debate often feels stuck between oversimplified takes like “It’s just a commodity” and “No, it’s a game changer!” Let’s assume for a moment that OpenAI operates as a commodity business but still figures out how to become profitable, even with small margins. After all, US Steel was a commodity and became hugely successful. Given these assumptions, why do you think OpenAI might not succeed? Let’s move the conversation forward.

lesuorac 2y ago

> Back then, Google spent heavily to index websites without a clear path to profitability [citation needed] Google's goal was always advertising just like every other search engine.

wmf 2y ago
Google didn't have ads until 2000. They strongly resisted banner ads (which were the only format at the time) until they invented contextual text ads.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  So, it took Google a whole year to display ads. That's really not the description of a company that is " without a clear path to profitability".
  - patrickhogan1 2y ago
    It’s fascinating to think about how long it took Google to fully embrace advertising. I completely agree with the previous posters point—Google strongly resisted ads, which were everywhere back then. Then they went full corporate and their real turning point, came in 2007 with their acquisition of DoubleClick, about 12 years after Larry Page and Sergey Brin famously claimed that advertising and search engines don’t mix. Now compare that to OpenAI. It launched in 2015, nine years ago, but ChatGPT didn’t arrive until 2022—less than two years ago. Google took over a decade to transform its core business with ads and figure out how to become a profit machine. Let's practice some intellectual humility and acknowledge that OpenAI still has time to work this out. History shows that even if it takes some time, that's perfectly fine.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    It would be more accurate to say it had no desired path to profitability. I have friends who interviewed in 1999, and all of them came away with the same view - they did not know how the company would make money. They all poked at this topic, and the founders were explicit they really did not want to sell ads. Two of them refused to join because they thought it would fail as a result[1]. So while they did end up doing that, it seems very clear they did not want to go that path if they could avoid it. If you have actual evidence that suggests this is not the case, rather than the random unsupported conjecture that it was "always their goal", i'd love to hear it! I've not met a single person who says anything but what i just said - it was not always their goal, they had no desire to do it. [1] Amusingly both ended up founding and selling companies for over 100m, so they did okay in the end despite theoretically missing a huge opportunity ;)