[drob518]

> More importantly, as sustainable long-term businesses, model-only providers are particularly at risk. Knowledge Atlas, Moonshot Labs, and Anthropic face defensibility challenges versus OpenAI, Alibaba, SpaceX, Meta, and Google.

Hm. How is OpenAI not a “model-only” provider just like Anthropic? Seems like they are vulnerable in the same way.

[georgemcbay]

The article does address what they see as the difference ("its investments in product, consumer experience, site publishing, voice, and hardware are all directions that have clearer moats")

That said I think it is pretty easy to make a case that these would-be differentiators are either currently underwhelming or completely unproven (as in the case of hardware).

[drob518]

Right. Arguing with the original article, not you, my counterpoint would be, “Sure, if they’re able to do that. But so could any of the other model-only competitors.” The best you can say today is that they have announced an intention to do those things, but in no way have they established themselves as being successful, yet. And the model-only Chinese providers have access to lots of e.g. wearable and consumer tech.

[treis]

ChatGPT is synonymous with non technical/work related LLMs. They're amassing a ton of user history. That history improves the product for the user because it has more context into the person. They can feed it back into model improvements and for advertising.

You can see a future where a user types in "plan a vacation for me" and ChatGPT coordinates everything from there. Those sorts of users aren't going to switch because model X is 10% cheaper or better.

[drob518]

I see a future where lots of models can plan a vacation for me, not just ChatGPT. Saying that there is brand equity in the ChatGPT brand feels a lot like saying there’s a brand equity in the MySpace and AOL 25 years ago. Google in particular, via Android and its relationship with Apple to power Siri, has a much better shot at grabbing the “plan a vacation for me” consumer market, IMO.

I could easily see OpenAI become irrelevant in 2 years if they stumble at all and don’t keep up with the other frontier models.

[delecti]

There's a lot of value in having your product's name be synonymous with the product category.

Google's quality has gone to shit, but internet searching is still "googling", both in verbiage and in the actual service people use. It's not an impenetrable moat, but OpenAI would have to stumble pretty hard to lose all of that edge.

[drob518]

I agree that there’s huge value in being the generic category name (see Kleenex). That said, Google and Apple are going to roll this into every phone and tablet and laptop/Chromebook. Yea, OpenAI can release a phone app (already have), but I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the Google and Apple integrations will be superior, and even if the EU or somebody forces them to create an “AI provider neutral API” like they have for web search in browsers, most people will just roll with the default like they do for Google Search. You might be allowed to choose OpenAI, but most normies won’t.

[treis]

They won't have the years of chat history to customize the vacation.

[cl42]

They are trying to diversify into consumer hardware and also are further along in owning data centers. The consumer hardware product, assuming it launches and does decently well, puts them in a very unique position relative to pretty much every other frontier lab. It's more speculative, but I'd argue it can change things quite a bit for them if it works out.

[NitpickLawyer]

They've been doing hardware stuff as well. Both "consumer facing" bs like wearables / portables, but also more importantly chips for inference.

Having a good model is one thing, being able to serve that model at good speeds and match demand is another. See Anthropic ~6months ago. Or Moonshot, they've already suspended subscriptions to their coding plans, because they can't meet demand.

[eikenberry]

Didn't the Apple lawsuit throw a monkey wrench into their hardware plans?