|
|
|
|
|
|
by utopiah
62 days ago
|
|
|
> justified in another 10 years. Hard to imagine when they don't have any moat. Sure they have ... I don't know how many users but it's not like a social network. Instagram was valued $10B with 10 very VERY fast not because of it's tech or employees but mostly IMHO because of the number of locked in users ... because of OTHER users. Here if one wants to move from OpenAI to Anthropic, they can and they do. You might have difficulty exporting history, context, etc but you make it. Even basic email has more lock-in than any of the model provider. They did have some moat few years ago, arguably, but now no differentiator that would justify such a valuation. They are no Meta/Google/Microsoft/Oracle not because of their size or technology but only because their customers can swap providers. |
|
|
History has proven the average person has very little ability to discern which products have lock-in.
Everyone was confidently predicting Uber would dominate over all the regional ride sharing apps because ride sharing is a commodity and subsidies were enough to shift user behavior.
The thesis from AI providers about lockin have always been coherent: increased personalization and learning of workflows over time would increasingly make using a new AI much worse than an AI that already knows you. If you look at the human virtual assistant world, stickiness is incredibly high once are happy with your onboarded assistant because onboarding a new person unavoidably sucks.
Is this thesis correct? We don’t know, it took Uber billions of burnt cash to discover their thesis was incorrect.