OpenAI risks repeating Netscape's fate — leading an era, then losing it

Full text

In the summer of 1995, the future of computing briefly seemed to belong to Netscape.

Netscape went public that August, barely sixteen months after it had been founded. Its stock doubled on the first day. The company had no empire of hardware, no installed operating system, no grip on the office desktop. What it had was a window into a new world.

Open Navigator, type an address, and the Internet appeared with a little throb of electricity. The browser did not feel like an application. It felt like a passage out of Microsoft's world.

Microsoft noticed.

The battle that followed was called the browser wars, a phrase that makes it sound tidier than it was. Really, it was a fight over who had the right to stand between the user and the next era of computing.

Netscape believed the browser would make the operating system less important. Microsoft believed that anything capable of making Windows less important needed to become part of Windows, preferably yesterday.

By the end of the decade, the company that had introduced so many people to the Web was no longer the Web's gatekeeper. It had been out-distributed, out-bundled, and finally absorbed into a stranger corporate afterlife.

A familiar temptation

There is a familiar temptation now to ask which artificial intelligence company is "the Netscape of AI." The answer usually offered is OpenAI, and the comparison is not wrong. ChatGPT did for artificial intelligence what Navigator did for the Web. It turned a technical architecture into a public experience. It gave the future a text box.

But the more important question is this: Who is today's Microsoft? Who understands that the winner is often the company that owns the default?

Every platform shift begins with a miracle and ends with a map of choke points. The miracle is what users remember. The choke points are where the money goes.

The early Web was sold as an escape from gatekeepers. It created new ones. Search. Browsers. Marketplaces. Mobile operating systems. Cloud platforms. Social media . The AI era is being sold with the same democratic glow.

And yet the deeper stack is already hardening. It is made of chips, power contracts, data centers, model weights, enterprise identity, workflow data, cloud credits, procurement channels, and the small tyrannies of default settings. The romance is in the chatbot . The control is somewhere colder, louder, and much more expensive.

That was true in the nineties, too. The Web looked like a page. The winners understood it was a stack.

The danger to OpenAI

OpenAI is the obvious Netscape figure because it supplied the first mass-market revelation. Before ChatGPT, artificial intelligence was a research field, a back-office tool, or a phrase executives used when they meant analytics with a larger budget. After ChatGPT, it was something anyone could talk to.

People underrate the power of the first interface that makes a new technology feel inevitable. Netscape did not invent the Internet. It made the Internet feel reachable. OpenAI did not invent the transformer. It made the transformer feel conversational.

But Netscape's story is not a founder myth. It is a warning label.

Netscape had the user's excitement but not enough control over distribution. Microsoft had the operating system. It could place Internet Explorer where users already lived. It could make the browser free. It could turn a product category into a feature.

The lesson was simple: if your rival owns the layer beneath you, your brilliance may become their menu option.

OpenAI is better protected than Netscape was, but not safely protected. It has a huge brand, astonishing usage, and deep ties to Microsoft. It also has the curse of being expensive in a way software companies used to avoid. Each improvement requires compute, chips, talent, energy, and capital. The old software dream was scaling with almost no marginal cost. AI can't do that.

That is why OpenAI's partnership with Microsoft is both strength and vulnerability. Microsoft gives it cloud computing infrastructure, enterprise access, and capital. Microsoft also sits close enough to learn from it, package it, hedge around it, and sell AI into the places where people already do work.

If Netscape's problem was that Microsoft stood underneath it, OpenAI's problem is subtler: Microsoft stands underneath it, beside it, and increasingly in front of the customer.

Netscape had the dazzling demo. Yahoo had the traffic. AOL had the subscribers. None of that was enough. The durable winners were the companies that turned their software layers into a control point and a tollbooth.

Nvidia may be doing exactly that.

The rise of Nvidia

In the nineties, Intel was the metronome inside the personal-computer boom. Microsoft owned the software platform. Intel owned the pace of the machine.

Nvidia occupies a similar place in AI, but the analogy understates the ambition. Nvidia is not merely selling chips into a boom. It is selling the industrial base of the boom: GPUs, networking, software libraries, developer habits, and a vision of the data center as an AI factory.

Every major AI player is both Nvidia customer and Nvidia escape artist. Google has TPUs. Amazon has Trainium. Microsoft is developing its own silicon. Everyone wants an alternative. The problem is that wanting one does not create an ecosystem.

Nvidia's position today may be the purest example of moving up the stack from below. A chip company becomes a systems company. A systems company becomes a software company. A software company becomes a developer environment. A developer environment becomes a tax on ambition.

For now, Nvidia is the toll collector.

The AI market will not resolve into one winner. Platform shifts rarely do. The Web did not produce one winner. It produced layers of power. Microsoft kept the desktop. Google won search. Amazon won commerce and cloud. Apple won mobile hardware and the app economy. Meta won social attention.

AI will do the same.

Microsoft may become the default enterprise AI company, not because every Copilot is brilliant, but because Microsoft sits where work already happens. Nvidia may remain the dominant compute toll collector. Amazon will likely win much of the infrastructure layer. Google must reinvent search while defending it. Meta will use AI to extend attention. Apple may yet turn personal AI into a device-native experience.

The likely losers are the companies attached to the wrong layer.

The changing landscape of AI

In the nineties, AOL looked invincible because it owned access. Broadband made that access less special. Yahoo looked inevitable because it owned attention. Search made that attention less decisive. Netscape looked revolutionary because it owned the browser. Microsoft made the browser a dependency of the operating system.

In AI, the same demotions will happen. Some model companies will become features. Some application companies will become demos. Some incumbents will decorate old products with AI and call it transformation, which is the corporate version of putting a spoiler on a minivan.

The mistake, in every technological boom, is to confuse the moment of wonder with the arrangement of power that follows it.

The wonder is sincere. The arrangement is not.

The early Web made people feel as if they had slipped the old gatekeepers. Then came the search box, the app store, the marketplace, the cloud account, the login, the subscription, the default. Each solved a real inconvenience. Each left behind a narrower path.

AI will likely travel the same road, only faster and with a larger electricity bill. It will begin as a conversation and mature into an administrative system for human intention: what we ask, what we buy, what we write, whom we trust, which choices are shown, and which never quite appear.

The future does not usually arrive wearing chains. It arrives offering to save time.

We've tested, reviewed, and ranked the best business cloud storage services .

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives , our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit