OpenAI's Crossroads: Finding a Moat in a Valuation Bubble and Identity Crisis
OpenAI's Crossroads: Finding a Moat in a Valuation Bubble and Identity Crisis
When a company's valuation is soaring, while its user base launches a "fire the CEO" campaign on social media, this disconnect usually indicates some deep structural problem.
Recently, discussions about OpenAI on X/Twitter have presented an extreme dichotomy: on the one hand, SoftBank's continued investment and valuation expectations of tens of billions of dollars, and on the other hand, users' angry protests over the removal of GPT-4o, Elon Musk's fierce criticism, and the strong encirclement and suppression from Chinese competitor DeepSeek.
If we shift our focus away from daily stock price fluctuations and model benchmarks, we will find that OpenAI is in a typical "innovator's dilemma." This is not just about technology or funding, but a strategic crisis about identity, business moats, and the future AI ecosystem landscape.
Loss of Emotional Assets and the Trust Crisis of "ClosedAI"
In business analysis, we often say that user habits are the deepest moat. However, OpenAI seems to be filling this gap with its own hands.
The biggest controversy recently stemmed from OpenAI's adjustments to the GPT-4o model. Many users expressed strong dissatisfaction on X, and some even used extreme wording such as "ruined our lives." This may sound exaggerated, but it reveals a key fact: for a large number of C-end users, their relationship with AI is not just a tool-based call relationship, but also includes some emotional dependence and deep workflow embedding.
When users shouted "ClosedAI, give me back GPT-4o" and included the hashtag #FireSamAltman, it marked a certain collapse of OpenAI's brand image. As one commentator said, OpenAI is "completely offending the consumer side and destroying the most precious core assets."
In the startup phase, this "betrayal" of early core users may be regarded as the cost of transformation, but for a giant with a valuation of hundreds of billions of dollars, this is tantamount to economic suicide. More fatally, this trust crisis is not limited to ordinary users.
Elon Musk, one of the co-founders, recently launched a new round of public opinion offensive against OpenAI, saying that its valuation "seems too high" and accusing it of being not only "extremely closed" but even using "dirty tricks." Although Musk's remarks are colored by personal grievances, the narrative he pointed out that "OpenAI is not worthy of its name (from non-profit open source to closed profit-seeking)" is becoming an irrefutable accusation in the mainstream public opinion field. When the brand name itself becomes a satire, this identity crisis will seriously hinder its progress in policy regulation and public image.
Open Source Wolf Pack and the "20x Cost Difference" Dimensionality Reduction Strike
If the internal trust crisis is a chronic poison, then external competition is a direct dimensionality reduction strike.
Twitter user @Jackkk pointed out a phenomenon that makes Wall Street uneasy: "Chinese models are not only 20 times cheaper, but also open source." This is not groundless. Chinese AI models, represented by DeepSeek, are impacting the closed walls built by OpenAI and Anthropic with an extremely aggressive posture.
Regarding DeepSeek, there are two completely different narratives in the public opinion field. OpenAI accuses it of copying American models through "distillation" technology, while the other side praises it as "free AI not controlled by the United States." Regardless of the technical source of the controversy, an undeniable economic fact is that open source models are achieving performance close to SOTA (State of the Art) at extremely low marginal costs.
This constitutes the "unbundling" and "commoditization" trends often mentioned by Benedict Evans. When intelligence becomes as cheap and ubiquitous as electricity, the business model of selling closed-source API subscriptions will face huge price pressure. If open source models such as DeepSeek can provide 90% of the performance of GPT-4 at only 5% of the price, then for most developers and enterprise users, migration will be a matter of time.
OpenAI's current strategy seems to be "fighting on six or seven fronts at the same time" - it wants to do AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), consumer-grade hardware, and deal with Microsoft's cooperative and competitive relationship, while also defending against flank attacks from the open source camp. As the comment said, it does not seem to have achieved a decisive victory on any front.## Agent-krige og Agenters fremtid
I en tid, hvor modellaget står over for en varegørelseskrise, er OpenAI's næste satsning tydeligvis "Agent" (intelligente agenter).
For nylig erhvervede OpenAI teamet bag Multi (tidligere OpenClaw) med det formål at bringe Agenter til masserne. Som brancheobservatør @pascal_bornet sagde: "Den næste AI-krig handler ikke om modeller, men om Agenter. Modeller genererer tekst, Agenter genererer handling."
Dette er et korrekt strategisk skifte, men ekstremt vanskeligt at udføre. Agenter kræver ekstremt høje systemrettigheder, et stabilt miljø og dyb bruger tillid. Og det er netop her, OpenAI's svagheder ligger:
- Bekymringer om privatliv og sikkerhed: Da det amerikanske forsvarsministerium annoncerede et samarbejde med OpenAI om at implementere ChatGPT i Pentagon, beviste det virksomhedens evner, men det øgede også nogle brugeres bekymringer om databeskyttelse. For at integrere Agenter dybt i operativsystemer eller browsere er det nødvendigt for brugerne at give ekstremt høje tilladelsesrettigheder, og OpenAI's nuværende ustabile tillidsgrundlag er muligvis ikke i stand til at understøtte dette spring.
- Konkurrenceforholdet til Microsoft: Musk forudsiger, at "OpenAI vil opsluge Microsoft". Selvom dette er radikalt, afslører det den potentielle konflikt mellem de to virksomheders forretningsmodeller. Microsoft håber at integrere AI-kapaciteter gennem Copilot og sælge dem til virksomheder, mens OpenAI, hvis de direkte når ud til brugerne gennem Agenter, uundgåeligt vil konkurrere direkte med deres største finansielle støtte.
Konklusion: På jagt efter en ny fortælling
OpenAI's nuværende forventede enorme tab i 2026 er ikke blot en teknisk flaskehals, men snarere vokseværk i en overgangsperiode for forretningsmodellen.
De forsøger at transformere sig fra en "non-profit forskningsinstitution" til en "lukket kilde kommerciel gigant", men de bliver mødt af et lavprisangreb fra open source-fællesskabet; de forsøger at etablere en følelsesmæssig forbindelse på forbrugerniveau, men afbryder brutalt denne forbindelse i produktiterationer. De spiser Microsofts frokost, mens de også bliver fortæret af åben kilde-ulveflokke fra Kina.
På dette stadium har OpenAI brug for mere end blot en stærkere GPT-5. De er nødt til at besvare det mest grundlæggende spørgsmål igen: Hvem er OpenAI egentlig i denne æra, hvor intelligens er ved at være allestedsnærværende, og marginalomkostningerne nærmer sig nul? Er de en dyr gæst i Det Hvide Hus eller en intelligent assistent for masserne?Hvis denne identitetskrise ikke kan løses, er selv den højeste værdiansættelse kun et tårn bygget på sand. Når alt kommer til alt, i denne æra med hurtig teknologisk lighed, er voldgraven aldrig bygget på modelparametre, men snarere på et uerstatteligt værdinetværk og brugertillid.
