OpenAI的DevDay活动本周举行，活动中顺带提到了大家熟知的那个既销售内裤也提供数据库服务的公司——AWS。我看了Simon Willison的实时博客评论，感觉自己的观点得到了认可：“当看到关于AWS合作的介绍时，我的注意力确实有那么几秒钟变得有些分散……”今天OpenAI宣布了一项非常有趣但几乎未被提前宣传的新举措：用户现在可以通过OpenAI的合作伙伴网络（目前共有32家合作伙伴）来取消自己之前所做的相关支出承诺，这与AWS Marketplace多年来一直提供的服务类似。
OpenAI’s DevDay keynote was this week, and it featured a cameo mention of everyone’s favorite underpants merchant who also sells databases, AWS. I saw Simon Willison’s liveblog comment and felt very seen: “My eyes glazed over a bit at the AWS partnership section, but it only lasted a few seconds.”With today's more interesting but also largely unheralded announcement, you can now retire your OpenAI spend commitments via a list of (at launch) 32 partners, just like the AWS Marketplace has done for years.
过去的“云服务竞争”主要集中在谁能掌控客户的基础设施上；而未来的竞争将集中在谁能影响客户的后续购买决策上。OpenAI正在采取一种非常策略性的举措：通过将自身的模型框架（Codex）开源，并将其与Baseten平台整合在一起（让用户能够使用这些开源模型），OpenAI实际上是在表达：“我们希望我们的模型能够凭借自身的优势取胜，而不是通过威胁或强制手段来迫使用户使用我们的服务。”
The last cloud war was fought over who got to run the customer’s infrastructure. The next one will be fought over who gets to steer the customer’s next purchase. OpenAI plays chess while Anthropic eats checkers OpenAI is making a fascinating play here. By making its Codex harness open-source, and including Baseten in its marketplace for access to open models, OpenAI is effectively saying “we hope our models win on their merits, not because we'll break your thumbs if you use others.”
其中，与Baseten的合作尤为引人注目——这是OpenAI首次明确表示，他们并不将那些尚未公开发布的开源模型视为对自身的威胁。这一举措将成为一个重要的风向标，用来判断“OpenAI”这个名称背后究竟只是空洞的口号，还是一种深刻的哲学理念。在未来，模型的分发渠道（而非模型质量的暂时优势）将会起到决定性作用。
The Baseten partnership is itself the most interesting one they've trotted out; it's the first real sign we've seen from OpenAI that they view open models (that they themselves have not released) as anything other than an existential threat. This is going to become a massive bellwether as to whether the "Open" in their name is words on a page, or a deeper philosophy. Distribution will almost certainly matter more than a temporary lead in model quality.
OpenAI显然意识到了这一点，因此允许用户使用带有补贴的订阅账户来使用其他工具；而Anthropic则持不同观点：如果你试图将Claude Pro账户与OpenCode平台结合使用，很快就会发现你的Claude Pro账户将无法正常使用。这种做法简直与微软的策略如出一辙……强制规定产品必须如何使用或如何融入工作流，只会让那些认为 AWS 是 AI 领导者的高管们觉得成功；换句话说，就是“他们的公司部署了 SharePoint 服务器”。
OpenAI seems to understand that, and lets you use subsidized subscription accounts with other tools. Anthropic disagrees; if you try to use a Claude Pro account with OpenCode, you will shortly find that you no longer have a working Claude Pro account. It's almost Microsoftian. Strong-arm edicts around how your product must be used or integrated into workflows only lead to success in the minds of executives who also think AWS is a leader in AI; that is to say, “their company has a SharePoint server.”
对我们其他人来说，两家前沿实验室在模型层面都没有明显的、可持久的优势能压过对方。OpenAI 显然是第一个意识到：其影响客户下一个采购决策的能力，本身就是一种独特的权力。
For the rest of us, there is no obvious durable advantage that either of the two frontier labs can sustain over one another on the model front. OpenAI is clearly the first to recognize that its ability to steer the customer’s next purchase decision is a power all its own.
细节条款从不像光鲜宣传册那样整洁。虽然具体条款仅在企业版 OpenAI 账户中可见，但目前公开曝光的细节显示，他们在发布时很谨慎。只有固定比例的支出（最高至上限）适用；资格取决于具体的客户、产品和采购项目；有趣的是，账单由合作伙伴直接开具，OpenAI 则在其端单独处理承诺兑现。这里没有自助服务，因此目前没有任何公开可测试的迹象表明哪些类型的支出（如果有的话）能通过审批关卡。
There are substantial caveats The fine print is never as tidy as the glossy brochure suggests. While specific terms are only available within enterprise OpenAI accounts, the details that have been publicly exposed so far show that they’re being cautious at launch. Only a fixed percentage of spend up to a cap applies; eligibility is specific to the customer, product, and purchase in question; and curiously the billing is direct through the partner, with OpenAI handling commitment reconciliation on their end separately. There’s no self-service here, and thus zero publicly testable indication yet as to what types of spend (if indeed any) make it through the approval gauntlet.
但假设这项业务起飞，供应商将获得已分配预算的客户和承诺预算，这对他们极为有利。作为交换，他们冒着依赖 OpenAI 资格判定和发现机制的风险；如果这项业务起飞，Baseten 几乎肯定不会是市场上唯一的开放模型提供商，正如云服务商之前那样，OpenAI 的市场将遵循此类事物的自然演变，开始吞噬其合作伙伴。
But assuming it takes off, vendors will gain access to customers and committed budget that's already been allocated, which is super for them. In exchange, they risk depending on OpenAI’s eligibility decisions and discovery mechanisms; if this takes off, the odds are terrific that Baseten will not be the only open model provider in the marketplace, and, just like the cloud providers before them, OpenAI's marketplace will follow the natural evolution of such things and begin eating its partners.
这意味着我们正走向一场对决。不难想象，许多客户将同时对 AWS 和 OpenAI 负有义务。第三方采购的功劳，究竟会算在哪份协议上？
This means that we're heading for a showdown. You can imagine that many customers will have obligations to both AWS and OpenAI. Which agreement will get the credit for a third-party purchase?
更有趣的是，客户方究竟由谁来最终掌控这一决策：工程部门、采购部门、财务部门——还是供应商的客户经理团队？这是每一个拥有企业级客户团队的 AWS 客户都在纠结的问题。为此，我有一阵子觉得，模型实验室正在成为这一代的云服务提供商，而云服务提供商则正在成为这一代的 IBM。IBM 的业务极其庞杂（我知道，我知道，很有价值！请别给我发传真了！）
More interestingly, who at the customer is going to be the one who ultimately controls that decision: engineering, procurement, finance — or the vendor’s account team? This is something that every AWS customer with an enterprise account team in place struggles with. To that end, I’ve felt for a while that the model labs are becoming this generation’s cloud providers, while the cloud providers are becoming this generation’s IBM. IBM does an awful lot of stuff (I know, I know, it's valuable! Please do not send me a fax!), almost none of it headline-making.
，但几乎没有哪项能成为头条新闻。不过，这些交易倾向于在高尔夫球场上由企业销售团队敲定，而不是因为你凌晨三点想解决问题而在 IBM 官网上签下来。虽然公司里仍有一些印钞机在运转，但“大蓝”作为科技宇宙中心的日子早已一去不复返，如果它明天倒闭，显然其某些部门至少五年内都不会察觉。它已沦为陈设，而非技术采用的驱动力。
But those deals trend towards getting signed on a golf course with an enterprise sales team, not on the IBM website at 3AM because you're trying to solve a problem. While the company still has some money-printing machines in it, Big Blue's days of being the center of the tech universe are long gone, and were it to go out of business tomorrow, some of its divisions would apparently not realize it for at least five years. It's part of the furniture, not the driver of technology adoption.
与此同时，“我们往外扔一堆东西，跟踪发布内容正迅速成为一份全职工作，昨天还烂透了的东西今天突然就顺畅了”这种局面，已稳稳落在前沿实验室头上。争夺企业级相关性允许竞争模型进入生态系统，并不一定表明哲学上的开明。这可以让更大规模的 OpenAI 承诺更容易被接受（“嘿，如果我们用不完承诺额度，可以拿去烧给其他供应商！”）
Meanwhile, the "we're throwing a bunch of stuff out there, keeping track of what we release is rapidly becoming a full-time job, and things that sucked yesterday are suddenly smooth sailing today" has become squarely the province of the frontier labs. The war for enterprise relevance Allowing competing models into the ecosystem doesn't necessarily demonstrate philosophical enlightenment. It can serve to make larger OpenAI commitments more palatable ("Hey, if we aren't going to use up all of our commitment we can burn it on other vendors!"), attract more vendors into OpenAI's partnership program to absorb that overflow spend, and give customers fewer reasons to leave.
，吸引更多供应商加入 OpenAI 的合作伙伴计划以吸纳这部分溢出支出，并给客户更少的离开理由。OpenAI 的市场使其处于一个有利位置，能从远超模型选择本身的决策中获益；当客户选择其他软件时，其合同也成为一项考量因素。AWS 面临的风险与其持续的财务成功并不冲突。
OpenAI's marketplace puts it in a position to benefit from decisions well beyond model selection; its contract becomes a consideration when customers choose other software. AWS's risk here is compatible with continued financial success.
更多的代理商意味着更高的 AWS 使用量。不过，客户可能会首先选择 OpenAI，并通过其生态系统使用多种工具；AWS 只会被视为一个实现细节（与数据中心提供商并无本质区别）。西蒙·威利森（Simon Willison）在主题演讲中忽略了 AWS 的相关内容，这并不能说明 AWS 的地位正在下降。不过这确实表明：AWS 的存在很容易被人们忽视；而那些对企业买家来说真正重要的内容，有朝一日可能会被视作“时代变迁的象征”（即那些曾经重要的技术或服务，如今已过时）。
More agents will presumably mean more AWS consumption. But the customer might increasingly start with OpenAI, select a variety of tools through its ecosystem, and only encounter AWS as an implementation detail, not materially different than a datacenter provider. Simon Willison tuning out the AWS mention in the keynote isn't evidence of AWS's decline. But it does show that AWS turning up was incredibly easy to miss, while the stuff that matters to enterprise buyers may one day be looked back upon as a passing of a torch. ®