Billion dollar deal? Probably not at all
According to Bloomberg, the agreement was even compared internally to Apple’s billion-dollar Google search deal. These expectations apparently were not fulfilled because, from OpenAI’s perspective, the ChatGPT integration remained too limited, too little visible and too weakly promoted. Users can use ChatGPT for free without an account, whereas subscribers get access to paid information through their account. Requests without a connected account are not saved and IP addresses are obscured.
OpenAI probably dissatisfied with integration and application
It is precisely this architecture that could have become a point of contention. From a user perspective, ChatGPT appears more like an add-on extension in Apple’s systems than an important part of Siri. Many requests continue to go through Apple itself; the system requires consent when forwarding them to ChatGPT. OpenAI was obviously hoping for deeper integration and more prominent presentation, but above all clearer information about the subscription options. Too few users knew about it and sales fell short of expectations – these are the suspected reasons.
…valuation without knowledge of the contract is almost impossible
However, whether OpenAI would have a good chance in court cannot be seriously assessed without looking at the contract. Such platform agreements often give the operator a lot of leeway in product design, placement and technical implementation. At least it can be said that the ChatGPT integration was carried out pretty much as Apple had once announced. However, it is simply impossible to know whether there were contractual clauses regarding economically relevant points such as subscription applications.