undefined | Better HN

0 pointsakoboldfrying1mo ago0 comments

100%. This is the only part that I find surprising/confusing. Surely whoever blinks first incurs a massive reputational hit with the public (who don't think about this deeply enough to see that it was always inevitable), so why do that if you don't have to?

Perhaps the bright side from Google's POV is that it means that they can be the first to start wooing advertisers to their platform. First-mover advantage there might outweigh reputational damage with the public, especially if OpenAI follows suit with ads in 6 months.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

gomox1mo ago· 3 in thread

OpenAI starts from excellent UX and needs to prove that they can monetize all those empty pixels. They will no doubt succeed.

Google starts from horrid UX where every advertiseable pixel has been squeezed dry. Only way to go is down.

lobocinza1mo ago

You're confounding your subjective personal experience with the whole. Google can eat the cake and have it. They already are profitable, they already have scale, they already have market penetration, Google is already installed in 72% of mobile devices, they have cost efficiency due to TPUs, they probably have the best data, at least for serving ads. OpenAI has no chance in outcompeting Google, not in ad-based revenue.

gomox1mo ago

Importantly: OpenAI doesn't need to outcompete Google, it just needs to show it can bleed.

As to the rest of Google's dominant position, it's an advantage for sure, but every leading vendor whose products turned to shit went the way of the dodo one way or another.

And it's important to mention that this includes GAds, not just the loss leader (Search). They have been so good at squeezing advertisers dry that ROI is barely there in many categories.

lobocinza26d ago

Who do you think will bleed when they race to enshitify their products? The company where users have lower expecations or the one where they have higher?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse