How can this become a monopoly/duopoly? There is no moat, the Chinese providers will continue to hunt the market leader at 10% of the price, there is no network effect (OpenAI's Sora was a play in that direction and failed).
I'm constantly amazed how this AGI/monopoly narrative can be kept up so long in the West, it just doesn't make sense (unless the state creates said monopoly by forbidding competition).
That's not what "moat" means. Claude Code has a castle. A "moat" is meant to protect the castle from invaders. It would be things like high switching costs, proprietary formats, network effects, etc. that aren't there.
In other comments people mention the "flywheel" of data and money feeding training, but there's a view that at some point the baseline open-weight models are "good enough" that the money will dry up.
> Open-weight models aren't going to be free forever.
The ones that are already released are, and they're already very good for most purposes and can be fine-tuned indefinitely, includin months or years down the line when processes have been optimized and things aren't as compute-heavy as they are now.
But all the open-weight players make money right now. Google (Gemma), Alibaba (Qwen), z.ai (GLM), minimax.io (Minimax) - they all have hosted offers and sometimes closed-weight max versions.
And the fact that the open-weight as well as cheaper tier 2 offers exist both place a ceiling on the prices the SOTA companies can demand - and as far as we know current prices don't even fully pay for inference alone already, at least not for OpenAI.
To my knowledge none of the players is even profitable on inference, though Google probably is, considering the continuous release of papers around kv cache optimizations, mtp etc.
No, a moat would be a feature preventing the competition from competing successfully. Classically things like patents, for example, or process knowledge like ASML currently has for EUV lithography, or the network effects of a social media platform, or access to data no one else has access to.
ARR is not a moat at all, because the revenue of OpenAI is not preventing Alibaba, z.ai and so on from generating revenue as well. The opposite is true, actually, because the first mover prepared the market (e.g. user education about application possibilities, creating the willingness to pay for the service in the first place) for the second movers.
People here write about switching from Claude to Codex mid-workday - that is the absolute opposite of a moat.
The only companies that have a chance of not losing everything in this market are those with established non-AI revenue streams, like Google or Alibaba, or those focusing on profitability in niche markets instead of participating in the SOTA death race.
A moat is protection so you can keep your ARR up or increase it over years. Arguably only google have a moat with their TPUs. NVidia has a moat. But the others who just train some models on NVidia hardware have no moat.
I'm constantly amazed how this AGI/monopoly narrative can be kept up so long in the West, it just doesn't make sense (unless the state creates said monopoly by forbidding competition).