The Phenomenon and Business Reality

OpenAI Chief Revenue Officer Denise Dresser issued a four-page internal memo to all staff with a single core thesis: the cost for users to switch AI suppliers approaches zero. Today's top- ranked model may be surpassed by competitors next week, and users can leave with a single click. This is not a technical problem but a revenue sustainability problem . The memo explicitly demands reinforcing product "moats" and designates enterprise customers as a strategic priority. For traditional enterprises signing AI procurement contracts, this means: the AI supplier you select today may be at its most vulnerable competitive moment.

Historical Analogy

This scenario closely mirrors the portal website wars of the early 2000s. Sohu, NetEase, and Sina competed fi ercely, with users facing zero switching costs between platforms. Ultimately, none established true moats, and traffic was captured wholesale by Weibo and WeChat. The large language model market is replaying the same script: ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini's core capability gaps are narrowing, and user loyalty r ests on "who is smarter this week" rather than deep business integration. The anal ogy holds because: when product core functions become highly homogeneous, competition inevitably shifts toward ecosystem lock-in and data barriers—precisely the underlying logic behind Dresser's emphasis on "moats."

Industry Consolidation and Endgame Scenarios

According to Grove's "Strategic Infl ection Point" framework, the AI supplier market is entering an accelerated consolidation phase:

  • Winners: Platform players who embed AI into enterprise workflows (ERP, CRM, supply chain) first—once users migrate data, switching costs jump from zero to extremely high.
  • Danger Zone: AI tool vendors offering only generic conversational capabilities, whether domestic or international, will face sustained price wars and user at trition.
  • Time Window: According to public information, the battle for enterprise contracts among leading AI vendors is expected to intensify dramatically within the next 12-18 months.
  • Warning for Traditional Enterprise Leaders: Now is the strongest window for AI procurement negotiating power; suppliers need your long-term contracts more than you need them.

Two Paths Forward for Executives

Path One (Active Lock-in): Require AI suppliers to provide private deployment or data-exclusive solutions, sedimenting your business data in a controlled environment to create genuine moats. Step one: Demand data ownership clauses in supplier contracts, with review cycles not exceeding 30 days.

Path Two (Maintain Flexibility): Avoid long-term exclusive contracts; adopt an API middleware architecture that preserves your ability to switch to optimal models anytime, letting supplier competition continuously drive down your costs. Step one: Have your IT team or external consultants assess the "migration costs " of current AI tools, using this as leverage in renewal negotiations.