Top
Best
New

Posted by meetpateltech 1 day ago

The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership(openai.com)
344 points | 461 commentspage 2
healsdata 1 day ago|
I'm not savvy on investment terms, but most of these bullet points seem like a loss for Microsoft.

What's the value in investing in a smaller company and then giving up things produced off that investment when the company grows?

jasode 1 day ago||
> and then giving up things produced off that investment when the company grows?

An investor can be stubborn about retaining all rights previously negotiated and never give them up... but that absolutist position doesn't mean anything if the investment fails.

OpenAI needs many more billions to cover many more years of expected losses. Microsoft itself doesn't want to invest any more money. Additional outside investors don't want to add more billions in funding unless Microsoft was willing to give up a few rights so that OpenAI has a better competitive position against Google Gemini, Anthropic, Grok etc.

When a startup is losing money and desperately needs more capital, a new round of investors can chip away at rights the previous investor(s) had. Why would previous original investors voluntarily agree to give up any rights?!? Because their investment is at risk if the startup doesn't get a lot more money. If the original investor doesn't want to re-invest again and would rather others foot the bill, they sometimes have to be a little flexible on their rights for that to happen.

mrweasel 1 day ago|||
If Microsoft doesn't believe that OpenAI will achieve AGI by 2030 or that there's a chance that OpenAI won't be the premiere AI company in four years, the deal looks less like a lose and more like they are buying their way out of a risky bet. On the other hand, if OpenAI does well, then Microsoft have a 27% stake in the company and that's not nothing.

This looks more like Microsoft ensuring that they'll win, regardless of how OpenAI fairs in the next four to six years.

onion2k 1 day ago|||
I'm not savvy on investment terms, but most of these bullet points seem like a loss for Microsoft.

Having a customer locked in to buying $250bn of Azure services is a fairly big benefit.

ml-anon 1 day ago|||
Or a massive opportunity cost. I’d imagine 250Bn of OAI business is way lower margin than 250Bn of some other random companies that don’t need H200s.
creddit 1 day ago||||
MSFT had a right to compute exclusivity.

"Microsoft will no longer have a right of first refusal to be OpenAI’s compute provider."

Seems like a loss to me!

davey48016 1 day ago||
I assume that first refusal required price matching. If the $250B is at a higher price than whatever AWS, GCP, etc. were willing to offer, then it could be a win for Microsoft to get $250B in decent margin business over a larger amount of break even business.
yreg 1 day ago|||
The risk stays somewhat similar. If OpenAI collapses it won't spend those 250B.
drexlspivey 1 day ago|||
Yeah poor microsoft, they invested $1B in 2019 and it’s now worth $135B
ForHackernews 1 day ago||
Not worth anything until they sell it. There were a lot of excited FTX holders, too.
yas_hmaheshwari 1 day ago|||
I was thinking exactly the same. Maybe someone who understands these terms and deal better shine light on why would Microsoft agree to this
justinbaker84 1 day ago|||
I was thinking the same thing.
soared 1 day ago|||
Exponential growth
gostsamo 1 day ago||
If there is need of more capital, you either keep your share without the capital injection and the share goes to zero or you let in more investors, dilute your share, but its overall value increases. Or you can let in more people and sign an agreement that part of the new money will be paid to you in the form of services that you provide.
drusepth 1 day ago||
It seems really weird to me that such granular intercorporate details are made publicly available (in a blog post?). I've never had to publicly state things like this when making corporate partnerships. That makes me wonder how much of this post is crafted solely for PR...
ethbr1 1 day ago|
I believe MS declares Q1 earnings today, and there had been some rumblings that they were risking accounting / reporting liability by failing to characterize their material OpenAI stake.

What probably happened:

   1. MS's accountants raised a warning
   2. Existing agreement prohibited disclosure of terms
   3. MS told OpenAI that wasn't acceptable and MS needed to publicly report details today
   4. OpenAI coordinated release of this, to spin the narrative
a_victorp 20 hours ago||
It's always the earnings reports!
bwfan123 1 day ago||
So, openai has contracts worth 250B with azure and 300B with oci in the next 5 years. Where is that money coming from ?
thebruce87m 1 day ago|
It’s like the Spider-Man meme with everyone pointing at each other.
GuinansEyebrows 1 day ago||
GDP is up, baby!
meetpateltech 1 day ago||
Microsoft’s announcement:

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/10/28/the-next-chapter...

Also: Built to Benefit Everyone — by Bret Taylor, Chair of the OpenAI Board of Directors

https://openai.com/index/built-to-benefit-everyone

blitzar 1 day ago||
> Built to Benefit Everyone

Whats my share then?

wiseowise 1 day ago|||
You get to contribute your data for the Moloch.
justinbaker84 1 day ago||
Microsoft is saying they have a 27% stake in the company after this deal closes.
deanmoriarty 1 day ago||
I always see a large amount of pessimism about this company on HN, and I accept it might be for rational reasons. What do people think is going to be the most likely outcome for the company, since everything seems to be going so bad for them product/moat/financial-wise? Do people think it will literally go bust and close business due to bankruptcy within a couple years? If not, what else?
Ericson2314 1 day ago|
It could be acquired by microsoft with large layoffs, and kinda run in me maintenance mode — if inference gets cheaper.

If inference stays too expensive, then I don't know what happens, maybe a few people will pay for it.

atbvu 1 day ago||
Every time they bring up AGI, it feels more like a business strategy to me. It helps them attract investors and dominate the public narrative. For OpenAI, AGI is both a vision and a moat.
Amekedl 1 day ago||
Regarding LLMs we're in a race to the bottom. Chinese models perform similarly with much higher efficiency; refer to kimi-k2 and plenty of others. ClopenAI is extremely overvalued, and AGI is not around the corner because among 20T+ tokens trained on it still generates 0 novel output. Try asking for ASP.NET Core .MapOpenAPI() instead of the pre .net9 swashbuckle version. You get nothing. It's not in the training data. The assumption these will be able to innovate, which could explain the value, is unfounded.
lm28469 1 day ago||
> because among 20T+ tokens trained on it still generates 0 novel output. Try asking for ASP.NET Core .MapOpenAPI() instead of the pre .net9 swashbuckle version. You get nothing. It's not in the training data.

The best part is that the web is forever poisoned now, 80% of the content is generated by LLM and self poisoning

IncreasePosts 1 day ago||
There are enough archives of web content from 5+ years ago(let alone, Library of Congress archives, old book scans, things like that) that it shouldn't be a big deal if there actually is a breakthrough in training and we move on from LLMs.
energy123 1 day ago|||
They perform similarly on benchmarks, which can be fudged to arbitrarily high numbers by just including the Q&A into the training data at a certain frequency or post-training on it. I have not been impressed with any of the DeepSeek models in real-world use.
deaux 1 day ago||
General data: hundreds of billions of tokens per week are running through Deepseek, Qwen, GLM models solely by those users going through OpenRouter. People aren't doing that for laughs, or "non-real-world use", that's all for work and/or prod. If you look at the market share graph, at the start of the year the big 3 OpenAI/Anthropic/Google had 72% market share on there. Now it's 45%. And this isn't just because of Grok, before that got big they'd already slowly fallen to 58%.

Anecdata: our product is using a number of these models in production.

[0] https://openrouter.ai/rankings

energy123 1 day ago|||
Because it's significantly cheaper. It's on the frontier at the price it's being offered, but they're not competitive in the high intelligence & high cost quadrant.
deaux 1 day ago||
Being the number one in price vs quality, or size vs quality, is incredibly impressive, as the quality is clearly one that's very useful in "real-world usage". If you don't find that impressive there's not much to say.
energy123 1 day ago||
If it was on the cost vs quality frontier I would find it impressive, but it's not a marker of innovation to be on the price vs quality frontier, it's a marker of business strategy
deaux 1 day ago||
But it is on the cost vs quality frontier. The OpenRouter prices are all from mainly US(!) companies self-hosting and providing these models for inference. They're absolutely not all subsidizing it to death. This isn't Chinese subsidies at play, far from it.

Ironically, I'll bet you $500 that OpenAI and Anthropic's models are far more subsidized. We can be almost sure about this, given the losses that they post, and the above fact. These providers are effectively hardware plays, they can't just subsidize at scale and they're a commodity.

On top of that I also mentioned size vs quality, where they're also frontier. Size ≈ cost.

senordevnyc 19 hours ago|||
Honestly though, hundreds of billions of tokens per week really isn't that much. My tiny little profitable SaaS business that can't even support my family yet is doing 10-20 billion tokens per month on Gemini Flash 2.5.
eitally 1 day ago||
Eh... perhaps a race to the bottom on the fundamental research side, but no American company is going to try to build their own employee-facing front end to an open Chinese model when they can just license ChatGPT or Claude or Copilot or Gemini instead.
eggbrain 1 day ago||
If we assume token providers are becoming more and more of a commodity service these days, it seems telling that OpenAI specifically decided to claw out consumer hardware.

Perhaps their big bet is that their partnership with Jony Ive will create the first post-phone hardware device that consumers attach themselves with, and then build an ecosystem around that?

respondo2134 1 day ago|
this would be an incredibly tough play. We've seen few success stories, and even when the product is good building the business around them has often failed. Most of the consumer plays are terrible products with weak execution and no real market. I have no doubt they could supplement lots of consumer experiences but I'm not sure how they are more than a commodity component in that model. I'm a die-hard engineer, but equating the success of the iphone to Ive's design is like saying the reason there were so many Apple II's in 80's homes and classrooms was because of Woz's amazing design.
falcor84 1 day ago||
I just want to say how nice it was to read those clear bullet points in this press release. I know that bulleted lists have been getting a lot of flack because of AIs overusing them, but it's really nice sometimes to not having to go treasure hunting in annoying marketing prose.
porridgeraisin 13 hours ago|
Aside from the investor fodder about AGI which was quite funny to read, the part where OpenAI is able to independently pursue consumer hardware is interesting. It points to OpenAI potentially entering wearables space soon - remember they hired Jony Ive?
More comments...