I don’t know. Am I wrong in thinking that the theory of fair contracts should have reciprocal payments, as there is a dual agency relationship? Of course the theory of fair contracts often fails.
Ben Thompson has a (refined) hypothesis:
This sounds like a game to get users and mindshare, with the ability to sell those users on subscriptions, i.e. the exact same model that OpenAI has on their website and apps. Moreover, if this cooperation involves Apple not paying, it also explains why OpenAI is the only first option: Google, for example, wanted to be paid for Gemini, or Claude’s Anthropic, and I can imagine (1) Apple holding the line of not paying, especially if (2) OpenAI makes strong moves to build its consumer business and become a strong brand and winner in the consumer space. In short, my current updated thinking is that both Apple and OpenAI are betting that the largest language models are increasingly sold, which means that Apple does not have to pay to access one, and OpenAI sees the scale and the mind share of consumers. as the best way to a sustainable business.
If I had to guess, I would guess that the main payment is from Apple to OpenAI? We know that Apple is very good at extracting money from customers. OpenAI, no matter how fast its growth path is over the next few years, may not have a comparable track record. So there’s one model where Apple pays for AI access rights, and then charges more for iPhones. You will still be able to buy cheap phones without these services, if enough people want it. OpenAI will of course charge you too, but only if you exceed the quota, as they face a “subscription exhaustion problem” in a way that Apple doesn’t.
Just a hypothesis. The fact that we don’t know should tell you something about the limits of economic thinking.
Source link