By proxy, having the strongest frontier model becomes less and less necessary for them and instead building a strong product by properly layering medium-strong models in a cost-efficient way is the priority.
In the end, regardless of technical understanding, people will always shop around on price if the feature set is similar enough I suppose.
If I want an LLM answer to "is erythritol bad for you", I'm not firing up ChatGPT. I'm just typing it into Google, and the LLM answer it spits out is pretty good.
ChatGPT needs to be significantly more compelling for most people to use it for one-shot LLM answers over Google Search. And the minute Google removes the one-shottedness of its search answers, it's over for ChatGPT.
Imo ChatGPT is just "a feature not a product", in the search engine space, as the adage goes.
The techies are the ones who are steering clear and sticking with search engines in my experience.
And much of the MS Office suite is actually a worse copy of another product, merely copied and forced via network effect. There are more than enough far better alternatives to e.g. Teams and OneDrive. The latter even makes Excel far less reliable to the point of unusability.
Not to mention Windows is easily replaced for the truly average person who spends their entire computer use inside a Chromium browser nowadays. Outside PC Gaming (which is far from the average if we are honest), the vast majority of people never touch software that isn’t already on mobile or more likely exclusively in the browser.
Familiarity and brand strength, not need or compatibility, keep the customer facing offerings of MSFT going. That isn’t inherently unreasonable either, for these people Windows is fine as Chrome works well enough on it and they do not have any needs beyond that, so why switch. Same with search, Google still finds flights, restaurants, Wikipedia, etc.
Being better is worth little if the vast majority are sufficiently well catered to by the incumbent. Even if another OS or search may improve their experience somewhat (better reliability, longer battery life, etc.) that doesn’t trounce the established player as long as the few basics aren’t utterly broken even to them.
You can actively antagonize your users, be worse than the competition, more expensive too, you only loose most if you make the few things most have purely become reliant on and are expecting worse, basically regress.
Reason all the bugs in Windows are fine, after all the memories of most people are dominated by BSODs and just not crashing daily is enough to be considered pretty good, despite the overall experience far worse than most other OS/DE combis.
I wish this was true
More subjectively, but if you want to ignore the "AI overview" and consider that not results (then why are they on my results page?!), just look for a specific, slightly older video on Youtube, a site Alphabet themselves run. You can provide the exact title down to the letter and are in many instances going to struggle to find it with Youtube search or Googles Video Search, even when wrapping in ", etc. Kagi and DDGs video search tabs meanwhile yield the desired results. Again, this doesn't mean they are amazing or massively far ahead as Google was able to reliably provide such results in the past. It just means that Google Search has regressed, yet users stuck with it because, as I've been saying, quality (or lack thereof) has a hard time overcoming brand strength.
Maybe I'm out of touch but I don't know anyone for whom that's true. They all use either games or Office or Photoshop type stuff.
I mean you can replace it but all the options - mac, linux or chromebooks have friction.
And friction on MacOS, Linux, ChromeOS, Android or iOS, I don’t see that considering the vast majority still switched to 10 despite the departure from a decades long established environment and, lest we forget, quite a lot of XP/98 software also did not work well on more modern Windows, again, not really a problem for these either. There is no reason not to switch despite the brand, which I again must emphasize, is ok. They are fine enough with the status quo, even though alternatives would be more stable, secure, have better battery life, etc. I just dislike the idea that some in the space cling to that better alternatives are surely going to be adopted and the only reason they aren’t by the masses is compatibility, slight differences in UI, etc.
Regarding Microsoft it’s not as easy to switch as going on another website, OpenAI doesn’t have that ecosystem lock in.
But it didn’t, Google users beyond a few initial super users who switched early on in the late nineties/early two thousands, track directly with the massive growth in new active web users. These new first time web users, far more than switching made up the growth between 2002-2006 that made Google dominant over Yahoo. It also should be kept in mind how much better Google was over Yahoo, whereas I am doubtful LLMs will have such deviations in quality, looks more like the opposite.
Point remains, OpenAI will, in my opinion, retain the strongest consumer share of LLMs, regardless of output quality, introduction of ads, etc.
This is not ecosystem lock in, it is solely branding. What do you think most have in mind when you mention search? What when it comes to online shopping? Now do the same for “AI”. Only one brand comes to mind for most.
People use Google search because they have (or rather, need) a Google account. Also, there are no alternatives really, because search is very difficult.
Microsoft has alternatives, but it doesn't matter, because you're artificially restricted from using them. All your friends (MBAs who cut your check) are using Excel, so why don't you just use Excel too?
Both Google and Apple (ie any searches in Safari make money for Apple based on the Google deal) said there was no slowdown on Google searches and the “AI overview” by Google is “good enough”.
Just like Blackberry, but instead of having to buy an new device to switch to the competition, the customer just needs to click on a different website.
OpenAI is already the consumer-first AI platform. And, in my opinion, in the minds of the average consumer, the biggest one that is "an app" with memory and folders, vs. something like Gemini which is perceived as an extension of Google Search and thus doesn't have the same "knowledge database" UI.
They don't really, because of Gemini and Grok.
If it was OpenAI vs Claude then yeah, ChatGPT is known whereas Claude you have to be an enthusiast to know.
But everyone using Google runs into Gemini and everyone using X runs into Grok, and people talk. Now even the laypeople know there is more than one AI, and they're from big brands that they trust. Which means that people will window shop for the AI with the best performance per cost. Bye bye brand power.
I mean, even just the name - 'X'. You can tell that's some Elon Musk bullshit because it's the stupidest fucking name I've ever heard in my life and nobody with even a quarter of a brain would ever suggest that as a brand name.
When that's literally the brand of your company, naturally I question if everyone has the screws tightened up there, you know?
We do not know for certain as of yet, but I’d be very surprised if Apple felt the need to loudly communicate to their user base that the upcoming Siri improvements aren’t Apple Intelligence. They won’t lie of course, but Googles brand in the space isn’t nearly as strong with the layperson, whereas they more than happily shouted their use of GPT from the rooftops initially.
Apple is in the business of contracting out new-hotness until their polish is done.
Then they put their name on the thing, pretend it’s new technology – and depending on the named feature, sometimes it is!
The numbers are just mind boggling even in the optimistic scenario.
I'm personally skeptical that they are able to pull off ads, at least on the short timescale they likely need to. They more or less have to nurture/disrupt a whole SEO industry, and the way big corps allocate advertising budgets are very slow to shift (many are still struggling to find their footing in social media advertising).
Ads are not just a switch one can turn on. Firstly, you need to build a decent ad serving/targeting/pacing engine. Secondly (and more importantly) you need to hire a shed ton of sales people (in many, many geos) and then ramp them all up (difficult if you're building the product at the same time).
And then you need to keep at it for 3-5 years minimum before you'll finally get the bigger/more conservative brands/agencies/etc to buy in properly.
At that point, you'll make decent money, after accounting for all of the costs. I'm not sure that you'll make enough money, but it would definitely stanch their bleeding a little.
tl;dr if they haven't already built this ad product, it's unlikely to make a material difference before 2030.
The person/department/agency that is responsible for doing SEO is the same one that is responsible for spending ad money on Google. It's in their best interest to internally sell "search" (no matter if organic/inorganic) as a good advertising channel and that creates great stickiness for Google's ad business.
Microsoft sells services pretty much everywhere on earth and has a near-monopoly on PC OSes, enterprise email, productivity suites plus a giant cloud computing service....and their annual revenue last year was just $245 billion.
OAI can't get anywhere close to that, not least because they have multiple competitors and several large corporations (MSFT, Google, Meta) would rather dogfood their own solutions than use a rival's.