Less secure, lower margins (more middlemen taking fees), harder to access, more likely to not work properly.
I would expect all the meta execs they've hired to know better so maybe I'm missing something...
Again, personally, I'm glad at yet another miss by Altman. But to claim ChatGPT is too new? Apparently hundreds of millions of users doesn't cut it these days. And if anyone thinks OAI has been anything remotely "strategic" around their product, well... Then you must enjoy shooting darts in the dark.
> quite the amateur move to not seize the market opportunity and keep it holistically for themselves
What does this even mean? There are so many businesses, especially in the advertising world, that first start white-label reselling so that you can scale up super easy and quickly. Then once market is captured, you integrate everything. This is a common adtech playbook, and the Meta execs know that as well.
And I say this as someone who founded & exited their own adtech platform.
I would not recommend OpenAI to start developing an RTB platform right now at all. Just first prove there is a market and the value is there.
> They took nothing from Google's paved road of incumbency in this segment.
Google bought / acquired themselves into the online adtech market mostly. Yes they have adwords, which was only really becoming something a decade after Google launched, which they paired with their acquisition of half the adtech giants (DoubleClick, Invite and AdMeld). So yeah, not a great example.
> I'm glad at yet another miss by Altman. But to claim ChatGPT is too new? Apparently hundreds of millions of users doesn't cut it these days.
This is just a useless attack for no reason.
Thank you for your subjective analysis.
> What does this even mean? There are so many businesses, especially in the advertising world, that first start white-label reselling so that you can scale up super easy and quickly. Then once market is captured, you integrate everything. This is a common adtech playbook, and the Meta execs know that as well.
This would be interesting if any of it were true in the case of OAI. They haven't captured the market and they don't appear as if they will. They're at the losing end of Anthropic and Google right now. The Meta execs OAI has don't understand the game today, in my opinion based on their approach.
> And I say this as someone who founded & exited their own adtech platform. > I would not recommend OpenAI to start developing an RTB platform right now at all. Just first prove there is a market and the value is there.
So OAI, their financials, their business models, their number of customers and their competition all aligned with your exit in adtech? Somehow I doubt it, but feel free to share.
> Google bought / acquired themselves into the online adtech market mostly. Yes they have adwords, which was only really becoming something a decade after Google launched, which they paired with their acquisition of half the adtech giants (DoubleClick, Invite and AdMeld). So yeah, not a great example.
Actually, it is a good example. Because when Google did this they had zero competition. Now Google is the competition. So, yeah... In line with the new reality. You don't get to compare OAI with Google 20+ years ago.
> This is just a useless attack for no reason.
No, it's reality for a lot of us. Altman is tied to a lot of unsavory players. If you want to apologize for these types of people then feel free to be their cheerleader. The great part of HN is that these comments have and carry market sentiments (all across the board). I could say your comments are useless, out-of-touch, founder drivel... But I haven't.
I disagree entirely. As someone who works in advertising every single company I've talked to would be queueing up to test ads on ChatGPT if they launched a Google Ads like platform.
If ChatGPT doesn't have enough scale to do it, then they shouldn't do ads.
It's OK to not have complete vertical integration. (They probably don't fix their own toilets, either.)
And if it makes as much money as it seems must be possible, then they can just buy one of the advertising partners that are already have plugged into their system and shitcan the rest.
middlemen taking fees is not the measure for comparison, the question is whether you could run your own ad business for your own platform and keep your costs lower than established players who sell on all platforms. the answer is generally "no"
look how much money coca cola makes, and they sell it cheaper than water and still pay for advertising!! we should all make our own coke and not advertise it...
The only players that sell through third parties are sub-scale publishers, and that is a shit business to be in. If that's what OpenAI is aiming for then they will never be able to compete with Google.
I'm not really sure what you're analogy about Coke is meant to mean here...
i assume the 22 year olds working 16h days at openai sincerely think people pay for ads on tiktok, and shitty low converting ads is why tiktok makes tons of money, and they sincerely think the solution to their lack of knowledge is delegating their core business to a DSP no one has ever heard of
You pay extra but you just plug in into a framework that already works.
It's also easier to drop the potato if it gets hot.
That makes me think it's just another higher level money game, and there will be some weird investments in which neither company does anything of material value in exchange except spin some number wheels.