RIP Trifold | The Vergecast
TL;DR
OpenAI is retreating from consumer AI ambitions after failing to monetize ChatGPT, pivoting to enterprise customers amid growing evidence that the public—including Gen Z—views AI as a net negative, with industry leaders now blaming users instead of building products people actually want.
🔄 OpenAI's Strategic Retreat 3 insights
Fidji Simo declares end to 'side quests'
OpenAI's CEO of Applications issued a memo declaring the company must stop pursuing consumer distractions and focus exclusively on enterprise and coding use cases where actual product-market fit exists.
ChatGPT's economics remain broken
Despite massive adoption, ChatGPT loses money on every query with no viable path to profitability through ads or consumer features, forcing a desperate pivot to B2B revenue to survive.
Second 'code red' in months
This marks another emergency declaration from OpenAI leadership, suggesting previous urgency from Sam Altman failed to produce necessary focus or financial sustainability.
💸 The Consumer AI Failure 2 insights
No profitable consumer model exists
Neither OpenAI, Google, nor Meta have created consumer AI products that generate meaningful revenue, with Google's AI Overviews producing inaccurate 'slop' that actively damages their core search business.
Meta talent acquisition backfires
OpenAI hired Fidji Simo and numerous Meta advertising executives specifically to build a scaled consumer business with ads, but are now abandoning that strategy after failing to challenge Google's search dominance.
📉 Public Backlash Mounts 3 insights
Majority view AI as harmful
An NBC News poll found 57% of Americans believe AI risks outweigh benefits, while Pew research shows 53% believe AI will worsen creative thinking and 50% say it will damage meaningful relationships.
Gen Z rejection alarms executives
Tech executives privately acknowledge that Gen Z specifically 'hates AI,' creating a demographic crisis for future adoption that contrasts sharply with previous tech waves like smartphones or Facebook.
Demanding without delivering
The industry is consuming massive resources—data centers, GPU capacity, copyrighted content—without delivering the obvious, life-improving value that allowed smartphones or YouTube to overcome initial skepticism.
🎯 Industry Denial 1 insight
Blaming consumers instead of building
Rather than addressing product shortcomings, VCs and industry voices are responding to negative sentiment by accusing the media and public of 'hating technology' rather than creating compelling use cases.
Bottom Line
The AI industry must stop demanding infinite resources and regulatory forgiveness until it builds a consumer product people actually love, rather than pivoting to enterprise bailouts and blaming public skepticism.
More from The Verge
View all
Everybody wants to rule the AI world | The Vergecast
The Elon Musk vs. OpenAI trial reveals a toxic power struggle driven by control battles and self-dealing, with damning text messages and journal entries exposing how personal conflicts between a handful of tech leaders shaped the AI industry's trajectory while highlighting terrifying future legal risks of AI-assisted discovery.
What an AI-designed car looks like | The Vergecast
Automotive journalist Tim Stevens explains how AI is compressing the traditional 5-6 year car design process into potentially 3 years by automating 3D modeling and wind tunnel simulations, while warning that eliminating entry-level creative tasks could break the talent pipeline for future designers.
Elon Musk had a bad week in court | The Vergecast
Elon Musk's testimony in his lawsuit against OpenAI backfired dramatically as he struggled under cross-examination, admitting that his AI company xAI distilled OpenAI's models and conceding he failed to read key contractual documents before contributing $44 million.
Framework is making PCs cool again | The Vergecast
David Pierce revisits the Rabbit R1 AI device, finding unexpected utility in its voice recording features despite earlier failures, before joining The Verge's Liz Loeffler to analyze the OpenAI vs. Elon Musk trial as a legally weak but damaging act of 'lawfare' driven by personal vindictiveness.