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

926 points | 787 commentspage 3
brutuscat 7 hours ago|
https://www.uberbin.net/archivos/estrategias/microsoft-opena...
JumpCrisscross 1 day ago||
It's unclear which elements of this new deal are binding versus promises with OpenAI characteristics. "Microsoft Corp. will publish fiscal year 2026 third-quarter financial results after the close of the market on Wednesday, April 29, 2026" [1]; I'd wait for that before jumping to conclusions.

[1] https://news.microsoft.com/source/2026/04/08/microsoft-annou...

chasil 1 day ago||
https://archive.ph/5lTPy
moi2388 21 hours ago|
Doesn’t work
airstrike 1 day ago||
Kagi Translate was kind enough to turn this from LinkedIn Speak to English:

The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy.

We had to rewrite the contract because the old one wasn't working for anyone. Basically, we’re trying to make it look like we’re still friends while we both start seeing other people. Here is what’s actually happening:

1. Microsoft is still the main guy, but if they can't keep up with the tech, OpenAI is moving out. OpenAI can now sell their stuff on any cloud provider they want.

2. Microsoft keeps the keys to the tech until 2032, but they don't have the exclusive rights anymore.

3. Microsoft is done giving OpenAI a cut of their sales.

4. OpenAI still has to pay Microsoft back until 2030, but we put a ceiling on it so they don't go totally broke.

5. Microsoft is still just a big shareholder hoping the stock goes up.

We’re calling this "simplifying," but really we’re just trying to build massive power plants and chips without killing each other yet. We’re still stuck together for now.

azinman2 1 day ago||
This was actually really helpful. I feel like it should be done for all PR speak.
JumpCrisscross 1 day ago||
It's better than the original, but still off.

"The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy" is objectively wrong–it has been messy for months [1]. Nos. 1 through 3 are fine, though "if they can't keep up with the tech, OpenAI is moving out" parrots OpenAI's party line. No. 4 doesn't make sense–it starts out with "we" referring to OpenAI in the first person but ends by referring to them in the third person "they." No. 5 is reductive when phrased with "just."

It would seem the translator took corporate PR speak and translated it into something between the LinkedIn and short-form blogger dialects.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-and-microsoft-tensions-ar...

Maxatar 1 day ago|||
Being objectively correct isn't the goal of the translator, the translator can't possibly know if a statement is truthful. What the translator does is well... translate, specifically from some kind of corporate speak that is really difficult for many people including myself to understand, into something more familiar.

I don't expect the translation to take OpenAI's statements and make them truthful or to investigate their veracity, but I genuinely could not understand OpenAI's press release as they have worded it. The translation at least makes it easier to understand what OpenAI's view of the situation is.

ghostly_s 1 day ago|||
> The only only pure fuck-up I'd call out is switching from third to first person when referring to OpenAI in the same sentence (No. 4).

"We" in this sentence refers to both parties; "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error.

JumpCrisscross 1 day ago|||
> "We" in this sentence refers to both parties

Fair enough.

> "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error

I'd say it is. It's a press release from OpenAI. The rest of the release uses the third-person "they" to refer to Microsoft. The LLM traded accuracy for a bad joke, which is someting I associate with LinkedIn speak.

The fundmaental problem might be the OpenAI press release is vague. (And changing. It's changed at least once since I first commented.)

auscompgeek 1 day ago|||
In isolation sure. But in context with the other points it makes it look like "they" refers to Microsoft in all the dot points.
matthewkayin 21 hours ago|||
> "The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy" is objectively wrong–it has been messy for months

I'm pretty sure "just" is being used here to mean "simply" rather than "recently".

MarleTangible 1 day ago|||
For reference: https://translate.kagi.com/?from=LinkedIn+speak&to=en
singingtoday 23 hours ago|||
Thank you for this!

That's kagi? Cool, I'm check out out more!

j_maffe 22 hours ago|||
This is somehow even less helpful than the og article.
Lucasoato 17 hours ago||
Do you do also weddings?
arjunthazhath 6 hours ago||
Elon once said OpenAI will eat microsoft alive
WhereIsTheTruth 6 hours ago|
Microslop killed itself

Partners with OpenAI then builds 4 products that compete with each other, runs out of compute despite owning datacenters and having infinite cash, then deploys it all in a way that makes people hate them (Copilot)

And now they are out of chips

That's always the moto with Microslop, buy what's good, established and liked by everyone, to then turn it to shit

History repeats itself, this company should be dismantled

cdrnsf 23 hours ago||
OpenAI's logo is actually a depiction of their financial connections.
monkeydust 1 day ago||
Original source afaik here:

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/04/27/the-next-phase-o...

eranation 23 hours ago||
So, silly question, does this mean I will be able to get OpenAI models via Bedrock soon?
conradkay 19 hours ago||
Yes, https://x.com/ajassy/status/2048806022253609115

(Andy Jassy) "Very interesting announcement from OpenAI this morning. We’re excited to make OpenAI's models available directly to customers on Bedrock in the coming weeks, alongside the upcoming Stateful Runtime Environment. With this, builders will have even more choice to pick the right model for the right job. More details at our AWS event in San Francisco tomorrow."

aenis 21 hours ago||
Likely, and via vertex on gcp (or whatever they are calling it this year).

Which also means, if you are a big boring AWS or GCP shop, and have a spend commitment with either as part of a long term partnership, it will count towards that. And, you won't likely have to commit to a spend with OpenAI if you want the EU data residency for instance. And likely a bit more transparency with infra provisioning and reserved capacity vs. OpenAI. All substantial improvements over the current ways to use OpenAI in real production.

NikolaosC 7 hours ago||
Microsoft and OpenAI quietly killed the AGI clause. The provision that decided what happens when OpenAI builds human-level intelligence, gone. Six months ago that was the most important sentence in tech. Now it's a footnote in a revenu restructuring. Tells you everything about where the AGI conversation actually is.
stingraycharles 6 hours ago||
Please don’t use AI to write comments on HN.
lateral_cloud 6 hours ago||
Thanks ChatGPT
jryio 1 day ago|
> OpenAI has contracted to purchase an incremental $250B of Azure services, and Microsoft will no longer have a right of first refusal to be OpenAI’s compute provider.

Azure is effectively OpenAI's personal compute cluster at this scale.

JumpCrisscross 1 day ago||
What fraction of Azure compute does OpenAI represent? (Does the $250bn commitment have a time period? Is it legally binding?)
runako 1 day ago|||
Azure did $75B last quarter.

That article doesn't give a timeframe, but most of these use 10 years as a placeholder. I would also imagine it's not a requirement for them to spend it evenly over the 10 years, so could be back-loaded.

OpenAI is a large customer, but this is not making Azure their personal cluster.

einrealist 1 day ago|||
I wonder how this figure was settled. Is it based on consumer pricing? Can't Microsoft and OpenAI just make a number up, aside from a minimum to cover operating costs? When is the number just a marketing ploy to make it seem huge, important and inevitable (and too big to fail)?
More comments...