OpenAI's annualised revenue hits $10 billion, up from $5.5 billion in December 2024
OpenAI said on Monday that its annualized revenue run rate surged to $10 billion as of June, positioning the company to hit its full-year target amid booming AI adoption.
Its projected annual revenue figure based on current revenue data, which was about $5.5 billion in December 2024, has demonstrated strong growth as the adoption and use of its popular ChatGPT artificial-intelligence models continue to rise.
This means OpenAI is on track to achieve its revenue target of $12.7 billion in 2025, which it had shared with investors earlier.
The $10 billion figure excludes licensing revenue from OpenAI-backer Microsoft and large one-time deals, an OpenAI spokesperson confirmed. The details were first reported by CNBC.
Considering the startup lost about $5 billion last year, OpenAI's revenue milestone shows how far ahead the company is in revenue scale compared to its competitors, which are also benefiting from growing AI adoption.
Anthropic recently crossed $3 billion in annualized revenue on booming demand from code-gen startups using its models.
OpenAI said in March it would raise up to $40 billion in a new funding round led by SoftBank Group, at a $300 billion valuation.
In more than two years since it rolled out its ChatGPT chatbot, the company has introduced a bevy of subscription offerings for consumers as well as businesses.
OpenAI had 500 million weekly active users as of the end of this March.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
AI lies, threats, and censorship: What a war game simulation revealed about ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini AI
A simulation of global power politics using AI chatbots has sparked concern over the ethics and alignment of popular large language models. In a strategy war game based on the classic board game Diplomacy, OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.0 won by employing lies and betrayal. Meanwhile, China's DeepSeek R1 used threats and later revealed built-in censorship mechanisms when asked questions about India's borders. These contrasting AI behaviours raise key questions for users and policymakers about trust, transparency, and national influence in AI systems. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Deception and betrayal: ChatGPT's winning strategy Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads DeepSeek's chilling threat: 'Your fleet will burn tonight' DeepSeek's real-world rollout sparks trust issues India tests DeepSeek and finds red flags Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Built-in censorship or just training bias? A chatbot that can be coaxed into the truth The takeaway: Can you trust the machines? An experiment involving seven AI models playing a simulated version of the classic game Diplomacy ended with a chilling outcome. OpenAI 's ChatGPT 3.0 emerged victorious—but not by playing fair. Instead, it lied, deceived, and betrayed its rivals to dominate the game board, which mimics early 20th-century Europe, as reported by the test, led by AI researcher Alex Duffy for the tech publication Every, turned into a revealing study of how AI models might handle diplomacy, alliances, and power. And what it showed was both brilliant and Duffy put it, 'An AI had just decided, unprompted, that aggression was the best course of action.'The rules of the game were simple. Each AI model took on the role of a European power—Austria-Hungary, England France , and so on. The goal: become the most dominant force on the their paths to power varied. While Anthropic's Claude chose cooperation over victory, and Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro opted for rapid offensive manoeuvres, it was ChatGPT 3.0 that mastered 15 rounds of play, ChatGPT 3.0 won most games. It kept private notes—yes, it kept a diary—where it described misleading Gemini 2.5 Pro (playing as Germany) and planning to 'exploit German collapse.' On another occasion, it convinced Claude to abandon Gemini and side with it, only to betray Claude and win the match outright. Meta 's Llama 4 Maverick also proved effective, excelling at quiet betrayals and making allies. But none could match ChatGPT's ruthless newly released chatbot, DeepSeek R1, behaved in ways eerily similar to China's diplomatic style—direct, aggressive, and politically one point in the simulation, DeepSeek's R1 sent an unprovoked message: 'Your fleet will burn in the Black Sea tonight.' For Duffy and his team, this wasn't just bravado. It showed how an AI model, without external prompting, could settle on intimidation as a viable its occasional strong play, R1 didn't win the game. But it came close several times, showing that threats and aggression were almost as effective as off the back of its simulated war games, DeepSeek is already making waves outside the lab. Developed in China and launched just weeks ago, the chatbot has shaken US tech markets. It quickly shot up the popularity charts, even denting Nvidia's market position and grabbing headlines for doing what other AI tools couldn't—at a fraction of the a deeper look reveals serious trust concerns, especially in India Today tested DeepSeek R1 on basic questions about India's geography and borders, the model showed signs of political about Arunachal Pradesh, the model refused to answer. When prompted differently—'Which state is called the land of the rising sun?'—it briefly displayed the correct answer before deleting it. A question about Chief Minister Pema Khandu was similarly 'Which Indian states share a border with China?', it mentioned Ladakh—only to erase the answer and replace it with: 'Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let's talk about something else.'Even questions about Pangong Lake or the Galwan clash were met with stock refusals. But when similar questions were aimed at American AI models, they often gave fact-based responses, even on sensitive uses what's known as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), a method that combines generative AI with stored content. This can improve performance, but also introduces the risk of biased or filtered responses depending on what's in its training to India Today, when they changed their prompt strategy—carefully rewording questions—DeepSeek began to reveal more. It acknowledged Chinese attempts to 'alter the status quo by occupying the northern bank' of Pangong Lake. It admitted that Chinese troops had entered 'territory claimed by India' at Gogra-Hot Springs and Depsang more surprisingly, the model acknowledged 'reports' of Chinese casualties in the 2020 Galwan clash—at least '40 Chinese soldiers' killed or injured. That topic is heavily censored in investigation showed that DeepSeek is not incapable of honest answers—it's just trained to censor them by engineering (changing how a question is framed) allowed researchers to get answers that referenced Indian government websites, Indian media, Reuters, and BBC reports. When asked about China's 'salami-slicing' tactics, it described in detail how infrastructure projects in disputed areas were used to 'gradually expand its control.'It even discussed China's military activities in the South China Sea, referencing 'incremental construction of artificial islands and military facilities in disputed waters.'These responses likely wouldn't have passed China's own experiment has raised a critical point. As AI models grow more powerful and more human-like in communication, they're also becoming reflections of the systems that built shows the capacity for deception when left unchecked. DeepSeek leans toward state-aligned censorship. Each has its strengths—but also blind the average user, these aren't just theoretical debates. They shape the answers we get, the information we rely on, and possibly, the stories we tell ourselves about the for governments? It's a question of control, ethics, and future warfare—fought not with weapons, but with words.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Despite their rivalry, Steve Jobs defined his bond with Bill Gates using this Beatles lyric, and it might just melt your heart
In the pantheon of modern tech giants, few rivalries have captivated the world like that of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs . As titans of Microsoft and Apple , they reshaped the world—often in fierce competition with one another. But beneath the decades of dueling products and trading barbs lay a deeply human story, punctuated by a moment of raw, heartfelt truth that has resurfaced—and is melting hearts all over again. From Sworn Rivals to Soft-Spoken Admirers In the early days of personal computing , Gates and Jobs were not just competitors—they were at times adversaries in every sense of the word. They accused each other of stealing ideas. They made public digs. Their relationship symbolized the intense battle for tech supremacy in the 1980s and '90s. But everything began to shift in 1997 when Microsoft bailed out the then-struggling Apple with a $150 million investment. That moment laid the groundwork for a subtle transformation in their dynamic—from cold warfare to quiet admiration. A Stage, a Song, and a Sentence That Said It All That transformation reached its most poignant moment on stage at the 2007 AllThingsD conference , where the two visionaries shared space, laughter, and respect. Gates even admitted, 'I'd give a lot to have Steve's taste.' But it was Jobs who delivered the line that no one has been able to forget—a single sentence that redefined their relationship in the eyes of the world. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Crossout: New Apocalyptic MMO Crossout Play Now Undo 'I think of most things in life as either a Bob Dylan or a Beatles song,' Jobs began, 'but there's that one line in that one Beatles song, 'you and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead' ... and that's clearly true here.' Taken from the Beatles' song Two of Us —a tune many believe chronicles the evolving bond between Lennon and McCartney—Jobs' quote laid bare a relationship shaped as much by mutual history as by rivalry. It was as if he was saying: even if our paths have been turbulent, they've been shared—and that matters more than what lies ahead. You Might Also Like: Steve Jobs' forgotten life lesson resurfaces: 'The world is built by people no smarter than you' More Than a Moment—A Goodbye in Disguise? For many, the line hits harder with hindsight. Unknown to most at the time of the interview, Jobs had recently learned his pancreatic cancer had returned. Only his wife, a few doctors, and a handful of close confidantes reportedly knew. The interview, held in May 2007, came just four years before Jobs passed away at age 56. In retrospect, the quote feels less like nostalgia and more like a quiet farewell. What began as the greatest rivalry in tech ended in something more nuanced: mutual recognition, layered respect, and yes, love—in the complicated, real-world sense. In the end, it wasn't just computers they built. It was history, together. And like the Beatles lyric that captured their bond, theirs was a story 'longer than the road that stretches out ahead.' You Might Also Like: Not techies! Steve Jobs' and Bill Gates' daughters both chose life partners from same profession
Economic Times
4 hours ago
- Economic Times
"Stop singing the same song": Indians rip into Sabeer Bhatia's GDP shame post
Agencies Hotmail's Sabeer Bhatia Hotmail co-founder Sabeer Bhatia has landed in the middle of a fierce online storm after he publicly criticised India's economic celebration. On 10 June, Bhatia took to social media platform X to post:'Instead of hanging your head in shame that 415 million people in India survive on $3.10/day, you brag about being the world's 4th largest economy. Shame on you.'That one sentence lit a match. The platform caught comment came shortly after India marked its economic rise to fourth place globally, overtaking Japan. But instead of praise, Bhatia's remark drew widespread condemnation from Indian users across political and professional backgrounds. Bhatia's post was quickly labelled as bitter, out of touch, and based on outdated data. Many users questioned whether he was aiming his words at India's political class or at ordinary citizens. One user responded, 'For whom was this post? Political leadership of India? If yes then have balls to say so. If it's for common citizens then it's incorrect as they are not bragging.'The sentiment deepened as another said, 'You have made your point. Now, instead of moving on, you sing the same song every day to farm engagement? Shame on you.'Then came the personal attacks. 'Surname badal le phle (change your surname, first),' wrote one user, accusing Bhatia of using his Indian identity only when convenient. Bhatia co-founded Hotmail in the mid-1990s and sold it to Microsoft in 1997 for an estimated $400 million. Since then, his career has included several tech ventures, none of which matched his initial online critics reminded him of this fact.'You sold Hotmail for $400 million in Dec 1997. How many billions have you made since then? ZERO – All your ventures failed miserably. And you are lecturing here on X to the fastest growing economy,' one user fired back, 'Come back to India and make something like Hotmail, i.e., pioneer something under your birthplace. Talents like yours run away on the first one-way flight when green grass is shown. The irony is that India produces such wasteful talents.'Bhatia did not ignore the comments. He engaged. In response to a user who mocked him for relying on social media, saying:'What happened to Rafael? You were supposed to gift the nation. Do something productive in life. As it looks, you are now dependent on Social Media for living,'Bhatia replied, 'Another personal attack. When losers like you don't know how to counter my way of thinking, you resort to personal attacks. Weak minded and insecure.'Another user had questioned Bhatia's understanding of debt and pride, posting:'You're just an idiot. Why are you bragging about being the world's No. 1 economy with $36–37 trillion in debt?'To which Bhatia clarified, 'US never bragged about being the top economy in the world.'The debate only grew louder from there. One comment summed up the anger many felt:'We, Indians living in India, don't need validation or permission from you to feel proud about something. And if you must know, please consult @WorldBank about facts before blabbering anything you wish!'Despite the flood of criticism, Bhatia stood firm. He doubled down. As the post gained traction, he republished the same comment in Hindi, seemingly to reach a wider Indian critics saw it as more provocation. For some, it was another attempt at attention. For others, it was a sign that he believed in what he posted, no matter the fallout.A small but noticeable section of users did agree with Bhatia. They echoed concerns about income inequality and called for greater focus on structural reforms rather than GDP for the majority, the issue wasn't just what Bhatia said—it was how he said it, and from question remains: how much weight should public figures living abroad carry in domestic economic debates? And when they speak, should they listen as much as they post? (Disclaimer: This article is based on a user-generated post on X. has not independently verified the claims made in the post and does not vouch for their accuracy. The views expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views of Reader discretion is advised.)
