Marketing theater while engineering scrambles. It's a tale as old as tech, but rarely on this scale.
I've been tracking OpenAI's 2025 trajectory closely. The pattern is unmistakable: more announcements, less substance. More partnerships, fewer shipped products. More hype, weaker market position.
The uncomfortable truth for us as engineers? OpenAI is becoming a marketing company that happens to do AI research. And the numbers prove it.
🎄 The "12 Days of Shipmas" Set the Tone
Remember December 2024? OpenAI announced "12 Days of Shipmas." Daily livestreams. Sam Altman hosting. Promises of "big ones and stocking stuffers."
The reality check? Of 12 announcement days, only 4 delivered major product releases.
- Day 1: o1 full launch + ChatGPT Pro ($200/month tier)
- Day 3: Sora video model
- Day 9: o1 API for developers
- Day 12: o3 model preview—announced, not shipped
The rest? Feature expansions, accessibility additions, partnership announcements, a phone hotline, and a WhatsApp integration.
MIT Technology Review nailed the vibe:
"The arms race is on. And while the 12 days of shipmas may seem jolly, internally I bet it feels a lot more like Santa’s workshop on December 23."
Announcements ≠ Shipping. OpenAI chose the first. Competitors like Google and Anthropic chose the second.
📉 GPT-5 Launched. Users Revolted.
Fast forward to August 7, 2025. GPT-5 arrives. Altman calls it "a legitimate PhD expert in any area." On paper, the metrics looked great: 700M weekly users, 18B messages weekly.
Then we actually tried to build with it.
Within days, DevTwitter and Reddit were flooded. "Flat." "Uncreative." "Lobotomized." One viral post summed it up: "GPT-5 sounds like it’s being forced to hold a conversation at gunpoint."
Altman’s response to The Verge? "We totally screwed up."
They restored GPT-4o access for Plus users within 24 hours. Think about that for a second. Users preferred the old model. The "upgrade" was a downgrade in DX (Developer Experience) and UX.
What followed was reactive scrambling:
- Aug 7: GPT-5 launch
- Nov 24: GPT-5.1 release ("warmer" personality)
- Dec 11: GPT-5.2 emergency release (fast-tracked after Gemini 3)
Three major versions in four months isn't agile innovation—it's damage control.
💸 The Financial Reality (It's scary)
Here is where the engineering reality hits the business wall. OpenAI has committed to ~$1.4 trillion in infrastructure deals through 2033 (per HSBC analysis).
- $300B with Oracle
- $11.9B with CoreWeave
- $30B/year for data center capacity
- Stargate project: Targeting $500B total
Against those commitments? $8-9 billion cash burn in 2025. That's about 70% of revenue. The company spends $1.69 for every dollar it generates.
HSBC assesses that OpenAI won't be profitable by 2030 and faces a $207 billion funding shortfall.
Compare that to Anthropic, which projects break-even in 2028 with much tighter burn multiples.
"You can’t download more electricity."
— Oracle has already pushed back data center projects from 2027 to 2028 due to power/labor shortages.
🪦 The Product Graveyard
Let's look at the "shipped" vs. "reality" list for 2025:
- GPT-5: Supposed to be transformative. Reality: Marginal benchmark gains, usability regression.
- Sora: Supposed to dominate video. Reality: Severe quality limits, beaten by competitors within weeks.
- o1 Reasoning: Impressive benchmarks, but at roughly 7x the cost per token, it's economically unviable for most production apps.
- Voice Mode: A feature parity play, not a revolution.
Meanwhile:
- Google: Gemini 3 feels like a genuine multimodal leap.
- Anthropic: Claude 3.5 reduced hallucinations measurably.
- Meta: Llama 3.1 open-source is eating the developer mindshare.
🚨 The December Red Alert
Internally, December 2025 was Code Red. Leaked Slack messages paint a picture of:
- Infrastructure delays
- Model performance plateaus
- Revenue deceleration
- Morale degradation
The narrative has shifted from "shipping tools to amplify humans" to "investing in long-term infrastructure."
Translation: We aren't making money, so we're betting the entire company on a physics breakthrough that might not happen.
What This Means for Us (Developers)
The "Scale is All You Need" era might be hitting diminishing returns.
If the best-funded player in the space cannot make the unit economics work, we need to ask serious questions about the sustainability of building strictly on top of massive proprietary LLMs.
Key Takeaways for Eng Leaders:
- Don't lock in: If you're building solely on OpenAI's API, you are exposed to their volatility.
- Watch the costs: If their burn rate is this high, API price hikes are inevitable.
- Evaluate Open Source: Llama 3.1 and others are becoming not just "cheaper" alternatives, but "safer" long-term bets.
Marketing theater. Engineering crisis. It’s a show that won’t run much longer.
Top comments (0)