Top
Best
New

Posted by helsinkiandrew 1 day ago

Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal(www.bloomberg.com)
Gift Article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-27/microsoft...

https://openai.com/index/next-phase-of-microsoft-partnership...

https://x.com/ajassy/status/2048806022253609115

904 points | 769 commentspage 2
1f60c 23 hours ago|
Wait, I thought OpenAI had to pay Microsoft until AGI was achieved or something? Am I misremembering? Is that a different thing?
maplethorpe 18 minutes ago||
I wouldn't be surprised if they had already, internally. An OpenAI employee tweeted today that Codex has achieved "escape velocity" and is now improving rapidly. Make of that what you will.
ksherlock 22 hours ago|||
Per WSJ, previously, they both had revenue sharing agreements. MSFT will no longer send any revenue to OpenAI. OpenAI will still send revenue to MSFT until 2030 (with new caps)
staminade 22 hours ago|||
My understand was that was in relation to IP licensing. Microsoft got access to anything OpenAI built unless they declared they had developed AGI. This new article apparently unlinks revenue sharing from technology progress, but it's unclear to me if it changes the situation regarding IP if OpenAI (claim to) have achieved AGI.
dist-epoch 22 hours ago||
[dead]
sourraspberry 23 hours ago||
The disparity in coverage on this new deal is fascinating. It feels like the narrative a particular outlet is going with depends entirely on which side leaked to them first.
scottyah 21 hours ago|
Just some of the games sama is playing.
aurareturn 1 day ago||

  Microsoft Corp. will no longer pay revenue to OpenAI and said its partnership with the leading artificial intelligence firm will not be exclusive going forward.
What does this mean that Microsoft will no longer pay revenue to OpenAI? How did the original deal work?
justinclift 21 hours ago||
Wonder if this means Microsoft is actually going to be deploying Claude Code internally for usage?

That might help fix some of the bugs in Teams... :)

alexdoesstuff 19 hours ago|||
It's unclear. That was never disclosed. It's similarly unclear what it means that they will no longer pay revenue share to OpenAI. Do they get the models for free now? How does OpenAI make money from the models hosted on Azure if not via revenue share?
Handy-Man 1 day ago||
They were paying them 20% of the revenue from the hosted OpenAI products I believe?
bilbo0s 23 hours ago||
Does this mean they will host OpenAI products but not pay them? Or does it mean they are paying them in some other way?
HarHarVeryFunny 23 hours ago|||
It seems that the old deal was exclusivity to MSFT with revenue share, and now no exclusivity, no revenue share.

Bear in mind that MSFT have rights to OpenAI IP (as well as owning ~30% of them). The only reason they were giving revenue share was in return for exclusivity.

borski 22 hours ago||
This is a really common way to structure exclusivity; we did the same thing whenever customers requested it (and we couldn’t get rid of it entirely). Charge for the exclusivity explicitly.

If they wanted named exclusivity rather than general exclusivity, we would charge a somewhat smaller amount for each competitor they wanted exclusivity from. They could give up exclusivity at any time.

That was precisely how we structured our deal with Azure, back in 2014-2016 or so.

deaux 22 hours ago||||
Azure was the only non-OpenAI provider that was allowed to provide OpenAI models. The comparison here is with Anthropic whose models are on both GCP and AWS (and technically also Azure though I think that might just be billing passthrough to Anthropic).
Handy-Man 23 hours ago|||
I suppose continue to host until the 2030/32 that they have access to but not share revenues when they use those models for their products like the bazillions of Copilots.
gurjeet 19 hours ago||
Related: GitHub has paused new signups for Copilot.

> Starting April 20, 2026, new sign-ups for Copilot Pro, Copilot Pro+, and student plans are temporarily paused.

From: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/billing/billing-...

aurareturn 1 day ago||
The original "AGI" agreement was always a bit suspect and open to wild interpretations.

I think this is good for OpenAI. They're no longer stuck with just Microsoft. It was an advantage that Anthropic can work with anyone they like but OpenAI couldn't.

Handy-Man 1 day ago|
It also restricted Microsoft from "partnering" with anyone else. Wouldn't be surprised if we see another news like Amazon, Alphabet investing in Anthropic.
aurareturn 1 day ago|||
I don't think Microsoft ever had that restriction. They partnered with everyone already.

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/11/18/microsoft-nvidia...

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/deepseek-r1-is-now-av...

https://ai.azure.com/

utopiah 1 day ago|||
Also Mistral e.g. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-and-mistral...

AFAICT they are just hedging their bets left and right still. Also feels like they are winning in the sense that despite pretty much all those products being roughly equivalent... they are still running on their cloud, Azure. So even though they seem unable to capture IP anymore, they are still managing to get paid for managing the infrastructure.

delecti 22 hours ago||
Are they getting paid in actual money? Or are the AI companies "paying" their infrastructure bills with IOU/equity.
utopiah 9 hours ago||
Those companies are so advanced they get paid in the promise of future tokens. /$
philipwhiuk 23 hours ago||||
They had it till October: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/10/28/the-next-chapter...
Handy-Man 1 day ago|||
Yeah my bad, I was misremembering, it was about investing in others and pursuing its own "AGI" efforts. But even those conditions were updated over the last two years, hence the small investment in Anthropic last year.
dahcryn 1 day ago|||
I think it was a lot less restrictive, as far as I understood, the only limit was Microsoft not being allowed to launch competing Microsoft-developed LLMs.
alexdoesstuff 20 hours ago||
It's kind of shocking, given financial transparency, that Microsoft gets away with not disclosing any details of this agreement (or the one it is replacing) to its shareholders. We know there's a cap on the revenue share from OpenAI to Microsoft, but we have no idea what that cap is (not whether it's higher, lower, or unchanged from the prior agreement).

We have no idea what it means to be the "primary cloud provider" and have the products made available "first on Azure". Does MSFT have new models exclusively for days, weeks, months, or years?

Both facts and more details from the agreement are quite frankly highly relevant to judge whether this is a net positive, negative or neutral for MSFT. It's unbelievable that the SEC doesn't force MSFT to publish at least an economic summary of the deal.

trvz 19 hours ago|
It’s American Business as usual. Personally I’m miffed how little data Apple needs to provide about product categories, and especially about how much they’ve burnt on the car program. If they shared any data about that at all some the leadership might end up having to take responsibility for mismanagement…
simonw 18 hours ago||
This quote from Matt Levine in 2023 feels relevant: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-20/who-co...

> And the investors wailed and gnashed their teeth but it’s true, that is what they agreed to, and they had no legal recourse. And OpenAI’s new CEO, and its nonprofit board, cut them a check for their capped return and said “bye” and went back to running OpenAI for the benefit of humanity. It turned out that a benign, carefully governed artificial superintelligence is really good for humanity, and OpenAI quickly solved all of humanity’s problems and ushered in an age of peace and abundance in which nobody wanted for anything or needed any Microsoft products. And capitalism came to an end.

saadn92 21 hours ago||
That's a pretty good swap if you're Microsoft. Exclusivity was already unenforceable in practice, and they were going to have to either sue their biggest AI partner or let it slide. Instead they got the agi escape hatch closed and a revenue cap that at least makes the payments predictable
lumost 17 hours ago||
This sounds like an issue where the hyperscalers are acknowledging that the new Foundation model firms may in fact be worth more than they are. Anthropic looks increasingly likely to exceed AWS revenue next year, and OpenAI will likely do the same with Azure.

3 years ago a Foundation model seemed like a feature of a hyper scaler, now hyper scalers look like part of the supply chain.

nayroclade 16 hours ago|
I think both got taken by surprise. Last year the talk was that AI was a bubble, demand was soft, pilots projects were failing, etc. Model providers still believed, but thought they had a long ramp up period to build out their own datacenters. Then in late Autumn/Winter, something happened. Model capability reached a threshold and demand exploded, then just kept exploding. Model firms are scrambling to find any compute capacity they can, which means striking any deals problem with hyper scalers. So question is whether model providers can get enough compute without having to effectively sell themselves to hyper scalers.
brutuscat 5 hours ago|
https://www.uberbin.net/archivos/estrategias/microsoft-opena...
More comments...