OpenAI’s existential questions | TechCrunch


OpenAI has been all over the news recently, whether that news is about acquisitions, competition with Anthropic, or bigger debates about AI’s impact on society.

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I did our best to round up all the latest OpenAI news. While the company’s latest acquisitions seem to be classic acqui-hires, Sean suggested they also address “two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.”

First, with the team behind personal finance startup Hiro, the company may be hoping to  come up with a product that has “more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.” And with new media startup TBPN, OpenAI could be looking to “better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great.”

Read a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity below.

Anthony: [We have] two deals that are worth mentioning, one is that OpenAI acquired this personal finance startup called Hiro. And that comes after another deal that was literally announced when we were recording our last episode of Equity, so we didn’t get to talk about it: OpenAI had also acquired TBPN — a business talk show, like a new media company.

And I think both of these deals are pretty small compared to the scale of OpenAI. These are not things that people expect to really change the course of their business or anything like that, but they’re interesting because it suggests that there’s still this [attitude of,] “Let’s try out different things.”

Especially [with] the TBPN deal […] particularly at this time when it feels like OpenAI, from all the reporting we’re reading, is also trying to really refocus on making ChatGPT and its GPT models really competitive in an enterprise context with programmers.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Is running a tech talk show, should that really be on the to-do list?

Kirsten: No, this should not be on the to-do list. That’s it. 

I do want to mention Hiro because to me, that’s an interesting one, because Julie Bort, our venture editor, super talented, she wrote about this and was I think the first to write about it. She dug in a little bit and basically this looks like an acqui-hire. The company is folding. They basically said, “By this date, you won’t be able to access this anymore.”

This is a personal finance startup. And they only launched two years ago. So this absolutely is about getting talent on board. So I’m very curious to see if OpenAI is going to be just absorbing them into the ether at OpenAI, or if they’re actually interested in some sort of personal finance product that they want to work on. To me, it’s not really clear.

Sean: I think you look at both of these as acqui-hires to a certain extent. I mean, the TBPN acquisition, allegedly they are going to retain their editorial independence on the show that they make every day. And all respect to those guys who’ve put that out there and gotten it off the ground so quickly and grown it into what it has become.

I think any person who follows the media should have a healthy dose of skepticism that when you acquire something like that and you put the people who make the show under the org of the public policy people and comms or marketing adjacent people higher up at the company making the acquisition, that you could have good questions about whether or not saying “editorial independence” is enough. It’s not an incantation that just works.

But you know, what’s interesting to me about these two, while they are similar in their acqui-hire-ness, I think they both represent two major problems that OpenAI is facing.

One is Hiro. OpenAI has a very successful product in ChatGPT. As far as whether or not that will actually ever make them enough money to become a sustainable business that’s not raising the largest private rounds in the world, ever, to keep things going, is a big question. And they also seem to be struggling to keep up on the enterprise side of things where the real money seems to be, so bringing in a team like this seems like taking a shot at, “What else can we do?” 

The guy who founded Hiro seems to have a serial entrepreneur streak of creating consumer apps, and so this seems to me like a bet on them being able to come up with something else that may have more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.

And then TBPN is an acquisition made to help better represent what the company does and better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great and certainly is under more questions now than just a few weeks ago, because Ronan Farrow just led a report at The New Yorker that dropped suspiciously right around the time that this and a couple other announcements from OpenAI came out last week. 

I think those are two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.

Kirsten: So the thing that you didn’t say is, there’s Anthropic kind of looming in — not in the shadows, I mean, they’re very much taking up a lot of space here — but they’re having a lot of success on the enterprise side of things.

It feels like these guys are competitors and they also feel like very different companies in a lot of ways. Anthony, I’m wondering if you see them as direct competition to OpenAI? Or [are they] just finding their stride in enterprise and in a way, these two companies are clearly going to coexist and they’re really not directly competing with each other — maybe on talent, but not necessarily as we initially thought of them?

Anthony: I think they’re directly competing with each other. There’s definitely a scenario where if AI as an industry, as a technology, is as successful as its proponents hope for, they could both be very successful companies, they could just be the one and two. And the success of one does not necessarily mean that the other will just fade into obscurity. 

And again, none of this is official, but there’s just been a lot of reporting around how it seems like OpenAI, more than anyone, is obsessed with and upset about Anthropic’s rise. 

Our reporter Lucas [Ropek], he did a great piece over the weekend about the HumanX conference, where he was talking to everyone there and they’re sort of like, “Yeah, ChatGPT is fine, too,” but like they were all about Claude Code. And I think that is exactly what OpenAI is worried about.

Because again, in theory, there could be many other opportunities for generative AI, but it feels like the big growth area, the area where the most money is and where they could at least see a path to having a sustainable business in the future, is in these enterprise and coding tools.

Sora’s shutdown could be a reality check moment for AI video


OpenAI announced this week that it’s shutting down its Sora app and related video models just six months after launching the app.

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I debated what the decision means for OpenAI and for the industry more broadly. To some extent, the move seems consistent with what we’ve been hearing about OpenAI as it focuses on enterprise and productivity tools ahead of a possible IPO.

In fact, Kirsten suggested that OpenAI’s decision to shutter Sora was “a sign of maturity that was nice to see in an AI lab.”

But Sora’s shutdown — along with ByteDance’s reported delay in launching its Seedance 2.0 video model worldwide — could also be a reality check moment for the makers of AI video tools, and for evangelists who claim these tools will be replacing Hollywood anytime soon.

Read a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity, below.

Anthony: I think it’s worth highlighting that it’s not just the app. I mean, the app was particularly unappealing to me, at least, and I think to other people, because it was this idea of a social network without people, where it’s just nothing but slop.

But beyond the app, it seems like OpenAI is basically winding down pretty much everything it’s doing with video. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke some of this news, it’s really about this idea that Open AI is — in advance of potentially going public — really trying to focus on business products, enterprise products, programming products. [So] this consumer social app, [and] more broadly video, is not a priority right now.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Sean: Yeah, I never really used [the app]. The idea of it turned me off for a number of different reasons. And you know, it was a good reminder that Open AI — and I don’t mean this to knock them down in really any way —  but I think this was a reminder, probably, for them internally, of the element of luck […] in how successful ChatGPT became. 

Clearly, there is something that is valuable there to people, I don’t want to take away from that, because you do not get to the usage numbers that we’ve heard reported from them without there being something that is working right —and even more so that it’s been kept up over a number of years and developed into something that stays meaningful to people.

But there was an element of Sora, when it came out, of like, “We built the most successful consumer product ever, and now we’re doing it again. And we’re going to bring in Disney and all this stuff.” I think this is just a really harsh reminder of like it’s not always going to be an absolute shortcut to the top of the greatest consumer products ever and that there really needs to be something that people feel like they’re getting some meaning out of it for it to stick around. 

Kirsten: Yeah, I actually want to give OpenAI props for this decision, because we sometimes make fun of the whole idea of “move fast and break things,” but I think that there is some value [to] companies that can iterate very quickly and then kill off products that are not working and not feel a sense of failure behind it. I mean, there was real money that was lost. If you were to look at the deal with Disney, that was a billion dollar deal, but if you look at — and we don’t have the insight into this because we’re not seeing their balance sheets — but what were they spending on this and what was the long-term value for the company? 

And I think that while, sure, it was interesting to see what they could create, their decision to shutter it, to me, showed a sign of maturity that was nice to see in an AI lab.

Anthony: In terms of what it means for OpenAI, it seems very consistent with everything that we’ve been hearing about their strategy going forward. It doesn’t seem like a huge blow or anything like that in terms of how we think about the future of generative AI.

Particularly in video, it’s interesting because it also comes at this time that there’s been reporting around Seedance, which is the ByteDance generative AI model [for video]. There’s reports that [Seedance 2.0 has] been delayed because there’s engineering and legal questions and basically [figuring out], “Can we build IP protections into this?” Which apparently they hadn’t taken as seriously before. 

And so, it’s this reality check moment. There were these really hyperbolic statements, including from people within Hollywood that [were] like, “We’re done, this is the future, it’s just typing in prompts and making feature films.” And it turns out that for all kinds of technical and legal reasons, it is not that easy and we are very, very far from that happening.

Sean: And the last thing I think we should say about this, too, is this is one of a number of decisions that appear to be happening after Fidji Simo came in [and began] sort of running the day-to-day operations. That’s just a huge dynamic that’s changed inside of OpenAI. And I think the further we get away from that moment of of her being tapped to run the show, and especially these consumer products and decide the fate of them, the easier it’ll be to look back at this moment in time and think about how big a moment that was for this company.