101–110 of 383 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ads are only for the free and $8/month plans. They basically added an ad-supported super discount level that you can ignore if you’re paying for the normal plans.
But the fact that they've added an ad-supported tier this early into their life as a company means they're desperate for revenue. You start inserting ads when you're optimizing for profit, not when you're still growing. It took how long for Netflix to introduce an ad-supported plan?
Not to me they don’t, cause I canceled my account and stopped using their products when they made the announcement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't said the same thing as the parent commenter: > So, is this OpenAI announcing they're strapped for cash? It by no means conveys that. It means they haven't figured out another way to monetize something they want to do; it indicates nothing about their financial situation. It means they don't want to sell something at a loss perpetually while they figure it out.
Being forced into something you don't want to do, to stop selling at a loss... I would categorize that as some level of strapped for cash.
All this means is: we have a free offering that we can't figure out another way to monetize right now.
We can each draw our own conclusions about what that might mean for the state of their business, but all of the other inferences (ha) in this thread are conjecture.
Less than two years ago, Sam Altman said > I kind of think of ads as a last resort for us for a business model. I would do it if it meant that was the only way to get everybody in the world access to great services, but if we can find something that doesn't do that, I'd prefer that. So, is this OpenAI announcing they're strapped for cash?
The ads are for the free tier and new $8 ad-supported plan. The revenue from a few ads on the free tier in exchange for limited queries to GPT-5.3 is negligible compared to what they pull in from API costs and the subscription plans. This looks like a play to justify the existence of the previously money-losing free tier as they go into an IPO. Throw some ads in there to make it closer to a neutral on the balance she…
Dang.
> The revenue from a few ads on the free tier in exchange for limited queries to GPT-5.3 is negligible compared to what they pull in from API costs and the subscription plans. This looks like a play to justify the existence of the previously money-losing free tier as they go into an IPO. Throw some ads in there to make it closer to a neutral on the balance sheet.
Yeah, I guess this time around Sam Altman can't be lying about how many Monthly Active Users he has.
Less than two years ago, Sam Altman said > I kind of think of ads as a last resort for us for a business model. I would do it if it meant that was the only way to get everybody in the world access to great services, but if we can find something that doesn't do that, I'd prefer that. So, is this OpenAI announcing they're strapped for cash?
The ads are for the free tier and new $8 ad-supported plan. The revenue from a few ads on the free tier in exchange for limited queries to GPT-5.3 is negligible compared to what they pull in from API costs and the subscription plans. This looks like a play to justify the existence of the previously money-losing free tier as they go into an IPO. Throw some ads in there to make it closer to a neutral on the balance she…
You'd be better off saying you use those people to A/B test changes and filling idle GPU batches while giving paying customers a more consistent experience.
Less than two years ago, Sam Altman said > I kind of think of ads as a last resort for us for a business model. I would do it if it meant that was the only way to get everybody in the world access to great services, but if we can find something that doesn't do that, I'd prefer that. So, is this OpenAI announcing they're strapped for cash?
The ads are for the free tier and new $8 ad-supported plan. The revenue from a few ads on the free tier in exchange for limited queries to GPT-5.3 is negligible compared to what they pull in from API costs and the subscription plans. This looks like a play to justify the existence of the previously money-losing free tier as they go into an IPO. Throw some ads in there to make it closer to a neutral on the balance she…
So why chase this negligible revenue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ads are for the free tier and new $8 ad-supported plan. The revenue from a few ads on the free tier in exchange for limited queries to GPT-5.3 is negligible compared to what they pull in from API costs and the subscription plans. This looks like a play to justify the existence of the previously money-losing free tier as they go into an IPO. Throw some ads in there to make it closer to a neutral on the balance she…
The real question is what do you get out of advertising to people who don't have any money? Kinda squeezing blood from a stone. You'd be better off saying you use those people to A/B test changes and filling idle GPU batches while giving paying customers a more consistent experience.
Some brands are okay with impressions.. you can build trust in your product be advertising it for weeks/months and when the user does make a purchase that brand is on the mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being forced into something you don't want to do, to stop selling at a loss... I would categorize that as some level of strapped for cash.
You realize we're talking about a product that is currently free, right? Neither of us have any insight into the margins of their paid offering. All this means is: we have a free offering that we can't figure out another way to monetize right now. We can each draw our own conclusions about what that might mean for the state of their business, but all of the other inferences (ha) in this thread are conjecture.
I don't see how that changes the analysis.
> All this means is: we have a free offering that we can't figure out another way to monetize right now.
And they're doing something they significantly don't want to do to monetize it.
Either they fully changed their mind, or the money is somewhat important, or they're utterly crazy.
The first is unlikely, the last is unlikely, the middle one is enough for a casual "strapped for cash".
It's a very minor conjecture. Actions aren't taken for no reason.
Less than two years ago, Sam Altman said > I kind of think of ads as a last resort for us for a business model. I would do it if it meant that was the only way to get everybody in the world access to great services, but if we can find something that doesn't do that, I'd prefer that. So, is this OpenAI announcing they're strapped for cash?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being forced into something you don't want to do, to stop selling at a loss... I would categorize that as some level of strapped for cash.
You realize we're talking about a product that is currently free, right? Neither of us have any insight into the margins of their paid offering. All this means is: we have a free offering that we can't figure out another way to monetize right now. We can each draw our own conclusions about what that might mean for the state of their business, but all of the other inferences (ha) in this thread are conjecture.