NVIDIA Investment enthusiast1. Not reaching 1 billion weekly active users doesn't equal growth failure.
1 billion weekly active users was an extremely aggressive target from the start. Missing internal targets only indicates overly optimistic expectations; it doesn't directly imply that product demand has peaked.
2. The cash-burning model isn't unique to OpenAI.
The entire industry is burning cash. The difference lies in who has managed to convert computing power into cash flow, and Codex has actually done quite well in this regard.
3. It's true that Anthropic is grabbing enterprise and code market share, but that doesn't mean OpenAI has lost.
Claude Code is expensive, excelling in high-end development experience; Codex's advantages are cost-effectiveness, ChatGPT distribution, and ecosystem access. The enterprise market isn't winner-takes-all; the coexistence of multiple models is an objective reality.
5. Google's chain rising 300% doesn't directly prove the failure of OpenAI's narrative.
Google's rise is a combination of advertising cash flow + TPU + Gemini + Cloud + valuation recovery, not simply because the market abandoned OpenAI. This comparison is meaningless for OpenAI. If OpenAI can still compete with Google without these industries, it precisely proves Google's failure in the model space.
6. The Altman and Musk feud is noise, not a core variable.
What we should really look at are ARR, paid user retention, enterprise penetration rate, the speed of inference cost reduction, and Codex usage duration, not the squabbling between entrepreneurs.
OpenAI has already passed the productization inflection point of GPT-4o. Among the top three, ChatGPT is the earliest system to withstand massive real users, multimodal interaction, code scenarios, API calls, enterprise deployment, and consumer subscription pressures. This experience isn't something that can be immediately matched by leaderboard scores. Claude Code is strong but expensive, Gemini is catching up fast but is still undergoing the transition from model capability to user habits, but OpenAI has repeatedly verified its monetization path within ChatGPT/Codex/API/Enterprise Edition. From a developer's perspective, OpenAI isn't even close to failure.
The Wall Street Journal reported that OpenAI failed to meet sales and user growth targets for multiple quarters in 2026, and even ChatGPT did not reach the 1 billion weekly active user goal by the end of 2025, while user churn remains. This directly raises market concerns about its "cash-burning model"—if revenue cannot keep up, the sustainability of future massive computing power investments will be questioned.
More importantly, there are structural changes:
Anthropic is grabbing market share in enterprise and coding scenarios, Google Gemini's user-side performance is also catching up, OpenAI is no longer unilaterally leading but is under pressure from both sides.
Over the past year, OpenAI-related targets have risen about 75%, while the Google chain has surged over 300%. Capital has already voted with its feet—shifting from the "strongest narrative" to "more certain realization."
I personally have always had a relatively negative view of this person Altman. Recently, Microsoft has also distanced itself from him, and Musk continues to argue with him on X. Could this chain potentially crash U.S. tech stocks in the short term and create another golden pit? 🤔
The copyright of this article belongs to the original author/organization.
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not reflect the stance of the platform. The content is intended for investment reference purposes only and shall not be considered as investment advice. Please contact us if you have any questions or suggestions regarding the content services provided by the platform.
