

Upvoted for a different perspective, but I suspect it ends in the same place.
OpenAI is kept solvent by investor capital, and capital is kept flowing by the perception of OpenAI being the market leader. Seedance being a better model, enough to cause OpenAI to exit the market, still ruptures the perception of value. In a market with no clear profitability path, that’s ground falling away.
It also can’t be simply commoditized because generations (I’m sure even Seedance) are expensive and still not good enough for production use, even if 50% of their consumer base might boycott if a major studio even did use it in production. Commoditization can’t occur when there’s still no economically self-sustaining, market-acceptable “good enough” product. Without that, even if the leader changes, it’s a race between lemmings (sorry) off the cliff.

So…to be clear, this was formed just prior to the release of the app, and almost certainly the app was being developed by this person/group before then.
Sure would be good to know what public funds were used to pay for this app (I assume too much), and whether there was a bidding process (I assume there wasn’t), and whether this person is someone the decision-maker already had some relationship/connection to (I assume that was the case).
Because regardless of the public value of a tracking & propaganda window favoring one party (none), it would be completely shocking, just totally unheard of, if this was a corrupt overpayment and misuse of public funds to pay for substandard work to personal and political connections.
I mean, we didn’t just see this happen with Noem or anything.