Why OpenAI is Less Open and Less Intelligent in Their Revenue Models—and How Gemini Got it Wrong Too

OpenAI has revolutionized the tech landscape, but its revenue model leaves much to be desired. Charging $20 per month, even for users in places like India, feels expensive—even when running a query on OpenAI costs significantly more than a simple Google search. However, this premium pricing isn’t all that surprising. Interestingly, Google is heading down a similar path with Gemini, but both companies seem to have missed a key lesson from their own past.

Google once faced similar hurdles in its early days. The company had to invest heavily in web crawlers, or "spiders," to collect vast amounts of data from across the internet. Developing the algorithms to churn that data into useful, intelligent search results was a technological marvel—brilliant and expensive. But while their algorithms were groundbreaking, the true genius lay in how they monetized search without charging the user.

Initially, Google struggled to make money from search. Selling enterprise products wasn’t enough to cover the costs of running such an innovative service. It wasn’t until Eric Schmidt and his team pioneered sponsored links and AdWords that Google found its revenue breakthrough. By monetizing the search ecosystem—rather than the search itself—they created an empire. In 2014, Google’s revenue hit a jaw-dropping $305 billion, and they did it without charging users for their search engine.

Now, take a look at OpenAI’s current model. While its algorithms are no doubt brilliant, its business model lacks that same level of creativity. Charging a flat fee of $20 per month globally, without adjusting for regional affordability or market needs, limits access rather than expanding it. Google’s Gemini seems poised to follow this same path, focusing more on direct monetization rather than creating an ecosystem that benefits both users and the company.

The real problem? It’s not that the algorithms are lacking intelligence; it’s that the minds running these businesses lack imagination in monetization. Instead of seeking innovative ways to allow for mass adoption, they are sticking to a traditional subscription model that only serves those who can afford it. This approach might bring in revenue in the short term, but it’s a step backward in terms of reaching global impact.

Here’s where both OpenAI and Gemini miss the point: New tech needs massive adoption to truly change the world. For AI to be transformative, it has to be inclusive and affordable—touching the lives of everyone, from the wealthiest cities to the poorest villages. It should be like water: essential, accessible, and available to all. Monetizing this kind of revolutionary technology isn’t about charging premium fees; it’s about finding creative ways to let everyone benefit from it.

Monetization should be the smallest concern for something so transformative. Once AI becomes ubiquitous, the opportunities to generate revenue will multiply, just as they did for Google. But first, you have to let people in. You need to make it affordable and accessible to as many as possible, rather than putting up barriers in the form of high costs.

By focusing on direct subscription fees, both OpenAI and Google Gemini are narrowing their reach. They’re missing the chance to build a larger ecosystem that could drive even more value—not just for themselves, but for the world.

In the end, both companies seem to have chosen the easier path of direct monetization, rather than the more imaginative and inclusive strategies that could lead to massive, global adoption. For now, this approach feels like a step backward in innovation. If they truly want to change the world, they need to rethink their revenue models and make AI as accessible as water. Until then, they’re only limiting their own potential.