Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

wsj.com

201–210 of 359 posts

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#201
post #172

IPO is to leave someone holding the bag, right? The narrative has really changed from AGI, the most consequential technology, blabla. If I had that I would keep it private. If I wanted to cash out, I’d do an IPO. Is there a narrative that doesn’t make it seem like pump and dump?

In the before times, companies went public to raise capital in order to grow their business.

It hasn't been like that for quite some time. The corpse is sold off to mutual funds and pension plans

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's books written about the Bay Area and the factors that make (or made) it uniquely suited for developing new technologies. There's even college courses about it. Some of it's surely provincial fluff, but it's undeniable that California has been an essential incubator for a whole series of world-changing, fortune-making technologies.

I don't want to downplay the network effects here, but it's in CA entirely by coincidence. SV is in CA because William Shockley's family is there, which is why he founded Shockley Semiconductor there. It could have been somewhere else. The 2nd largest tech hub is in Seattle. It's there because that's were Bill Gates is from. Is SF the best place to start a startup if you want in office talent in 2025. 100% yes, but t…

It goes back way way further than that. The special mix of government funded technology, ruthless entrepreneurship, and social engineering predates Shockley by almost 100 years.

Start by figuring out who Leland Stanford is and how he got rich. Read the book ‘Palo Alto’ if you’re looking for a good starting point.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're concentrated there because they've been asked to concentrate there. That can change on a dime. It's not like data centers are mainly in SF.

> That can change on a dime. People tried very hard to change it between 2020-2023 and utterly failed.

Cries in the number of "next Silicon Valley" in the last 30 years.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#204
post #66

Can someone explain to me why California would believe Sam Altman plans to stay in California? This is a weak handshake agreement that could easily be flipped post IPO. The very flip from non-profit to IPO shows he will do what it takes for OpenAI to "succeed", so why would the geographical location be any more permanent than corporate structure. This isnt a diss to Sam either, it just shows he is motivated by whatev…

I’m pretty sure Sam is motivated by whatever is best for Sam, not OpenAI.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#205

It used to be that you could find an IPO underwriter after 100M in revenue and growing YoY above others in the competitive basket. I’m not sure that’s true anymore, I think you still need the revenue, but just need attention. everything else is just whatever because you can’t predict 10 year outcomes for any business at this point with any level of confidence, and there’s nothing to compare it to other than extremely…

A ton of regulation happened after 2008/09. So to even become a public entity it’s a ton of effort and expense. And scrutiny. Not saying the laws are bad (but overdone) but the side effect is that small companies with upside don’t go to the public market now. Among other reasons like better developed VC outlets. That were formed because of the regulations.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#206
post #14
post #11

TFA: > OpenAI had spent months making the case that it was the economic heart of the California economy—and would be willing to leave if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. https://x.com/sama/status/1983223056668746218 : > California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other compa…

> if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. i'm a bit out of the loop but honestly why does California have a say? surely the investor base and Microsoft was a far harder negotiation than this one. this one smells of govt overreach.

Yes, blocking a NON-PROFIT from magically IPO-ing as a for profit company and therefore skirting years of taxes is overreach.

Guys, the only state morally bankrupt enough to just allow that is Texas. Why do you think these tech bozos love Texas? It's basically cyberpunk over here. Our government actively hates us.

We struck down paid water breaks in Texas. I once worked a job with no breaks at all. 10 hour days, no lunch. Yes, that's legal here.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#207
Good to see California coming to its senses after years of fever dreams. Disparaging their tech blessings and holding their biggest revenue source in contempt out of jealousy was a losing strategy. Hopefully those people are marginalized more and more and we can again celebrate technology innovation and the vast wealth and prosperity it brings millions of people.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#208

I don’t understand the animus towards OAI going public. ChatGPT undoubtedly changed the world. The non->for profit status of the company is not impacting anyone. It’s not like their success was made possible by being a non-profit. Suddenly everyone here is very very concerned with the classification of this corporate entity, and I detect people feel personally slighted. Why is that?

> The non->for profit status of the company is not impacting anyone.

They're quite literally running away with millions in tax money they stole. That means from YOU.

It's a sense of entitlement that pisses people off. Imagine you're a hardworking American who pays his taxes for the betterment of his country.

And then here comes this Sam Altman douchebag, who thinks he's so important he doesn't have to pay taxes. He thinks you should foot the bill, because you're nobody, and he's Sam Altman.

If you're not at least a little bit pissed at the precedent this is setting, I personally view that as pathetic.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say so? They’re burning cash and don’t currently have a viable path to profitability. Sure they have millions of MAU but not many paying ones.

Look at all the companies that have 'burned cash' with no viable path to profitability over the last 20 years. The good ones outlive that criticism, easily. Think Uber, etc. They clearly see a path to profitability and they have plenty of room to experiment here with what works. With new partnerships and dependencies, they won't run out of cash for a long time.

I would not be convinced they outlive the criticism.

I think it's highly likely in the next 10 years companies like Spotify and Uber will no longer exist. They're fundamentally antogonistic to their capital.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#210

Prediction for the future: OpenAI IPO's lots of money changes hands, it chugs along for a while, hits a hard spot and then is taken private for pennies on the dollar by Microsoft.

Jacques, I've been reading and enjoying your posts here for at least 15 years. (Thank you for your service.) But I think you're totally incorrect on this; oAI is going to be one of the enduring tech consumer brands built in this half of the 21st century.

Time will tell. I've been wrong before. Note that I'm not saying that OpenAI will disappear, just that it will end up as a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft.
Post reply on HN