OpenAI Is Winning and It Doesn't Matter
It's all based on a gut feeling and a couple of questionable graphs.
Read here: OpenAI Is Winning and It Doesn't Matter
I like OpenAI’s GPT Astra and GPT Sol better than Anthropic’s Claude, but it’s all based on a vibes and a couple of questionable graphs. I was Team Claude for a while, but after switching I no longer feel attached to any provider. This is good for me but bad for the business models of expensive “luxury” token providers like Anthropic and OpenAI.
What kept me with Claude at first was comfort with the model: I know how Claude codes. But the questionable graphs kept coming. “Try GPT Sol,” the graphs said. I dabbled with a $20 subscription and many more tokens fit into the plan than I expected. Adaptation was easy. I stuck with the GPT family and only dabble in Claude (which remains better at chat).
Anthropic held the cutting edge from November 2025, often called “the inflection point”. OpenAI beat them at best coding agent per dollar with GPT 5.6 Sol and expanded their lead up through GPT 6.1 Sol.
Claude Fable, on the other hand, reinforces the vibes-beat-quality story and the questionable graphs back me up. I was left with a bad taste because of the price, the overzealous security safeguards, and the spat with the government regarding export controls. It’s become an expensive pariah for me. No one ever got fired for not using Fable.
Both subscriptions are vastly cheaper than the raw API price. Compare price per million tokens, or price per task, and the advantage over open weight models evaporates. Anthropic and OpenAI are effectively paying me to stay on their subscriptions. They have no moat and the frontier labs know it. The choice between models is all vibes and, ironically, the products they sell are built to help you switch. They’re built to do everything.
The frontier labs lack pricing power over individuals. An exodus of personal subscribers would spell doom for their narrative. Consumer intolerance for restrictive policies has already made them back down, and the encroachment of open weight models into the questionable graphs is continuing to exert pressure. They’ll keep subsidizing until they can’t or don’t need to.
“But what if there was a way for the AI companies to get government permission to violate antitrust law and cease to compete with one another, and secure a ban on the use of Chinese open weight models?” asked Cory Doctorow recently. Monopolies do make it difficult to find a better competitor. So far this seems unlikely.
For now, I will use the luxury tokens from the current best provider while they last, but my loyalty is gone. If I’m a representative power user, and if that’s the source of most consumer spend, then it could pose a tricky problem for AI companies trying to support their valuations. The commoditization of intelligence will continually force subsidization of loyalty in order to maintain the narrative that keeps their training runs funded.
Anthropic anticipated more than half a trillion dollars in spending in their potential upcoming IPO filing. It also notes that revenue is growing quarter over quarter, and that they would be profitable if you ignore how much it costs. Rising revenue may not even be enough. As the second derivative argues, “I do not need demand to fail. I need the rate of capex growth to flatten - and a structure this levered and dependent on perpetual acceleration breaks on the flattening alone.” Even with revenue growing, can these subsidies hold in the face of a product that has near zero lock-in and questionable consumer loyalty? They both have to and, I think, can’t afford to.
The math for enterprises is different. Most of them pay full API prices and the terms of their lock-in are different, often self-inflicted. I’d like to examine that soon.