[gateorade]

Why would you start a company that is entirely dependent on a third party’s closed product, over which you have zero control? This just feels immensely risky.

[zamnos]

Realistically, if you start a business, there are tons of such dependencies. If that's too scary for you, you're probably too risk adverse to be an entrepreneur.

[esperent]

The issue is not having dependencies. The issue is having one specific dependency that is a beta experimental product with no viable alternative, and which will tank your company when they raise prices.

Your company must always have alternatives for all third party services. The only exception is open source software that you could switch to hosting yourself if the SAAS company shuts down.

[bfeynman]

Shocking that you are able to even get investors with such a crude view on how business works. Starting an ancillary business related to one product that is not even your own IP or core competency is just lightweight consultancy, not a start up.

[unclad5968]

All those dependencies usually have alternatives though

[ilaksh]

I don't know how to get $78,000 and it's asinine that you would assume that isn't a hurdle for anyone.

[fragsworth]

It's the only service available that does this and you want to get ahead of it. Presumably, some competitors will show up and you should be able to switch. Prices will go down as competition pops up and they make things more efficient.

[RivieraKid]

Starting a company is risky. If everyone thinks like you, it creates an opportunity to create a product that doesn't exist. And yes, there's a risk.

[mritchie712]

Competition and progress on infra will drive the cost down over time. OpenAI won't be the only show in town. It will become like thinking it's a risk to build on AWS.