AI Everything Today

Overview: OpenAI, Microsoft and the leaked documents

Leaked internal documents reported on November 14, 2025 reveal that OpenAI and Microsoft have a revenue share agreement, and that the files include information about inference costs. The key actors named in the reporting are OpenAI, the maker of popular large language models, and Microsoft, the cloud provider and major commercial partner through its Azure platform.

The documents do not publish precise dollar amounts for payments; they do confirm the existence of an arrangement that shares revenue and they disclose the concept of inference costs. For most readers this raises two straightforward questions. First, how does a revenue share agreement between a model developer and a cloud provider work in practice? Second, why do inference costs matter to consumers, businesses, and competition?

What the leak reveals at a high level

The leaked material makes two main points clear.

• There is a contractual revenue share between OpenAI and Microsoft. That means a portion of the money generated from certain OpenAI products or services is shared with Microsoft under the terms of their agreement.
• The documents include figures and discussion about inference costs. Inference costs are the expenses incurred when running a model to generate outputs, such as answering a question or returning text for a user request.

Reporters did not publish specific payment amounts tied to the revenue share in the coverage summarized here. Thus this article focuses on what the existence of such a deal implies without inventing or repeating exact numbers.

What is a revenue share agreement

A revenue share agreement splits revenue from a product or service between parties. In this context, OpenAI produces and sells access to models, and Microsoft supplies the cloud infrastructure, sales channels, or distribution that helps make those services available at scale. The split is negotiated and specified in a contract.

What are inference costs

Inference costs refer to the cost of running a model to process requests and produce outputs. These are distinct from training costs, which are the expenses for initially building a model.

• Compute resources, such as GPUs and specialized accelerators, are the largest driver of inference cost.
• Data movement and storage also contribute, because moving large inputs and outputs across networks uses infrastructure capacity.
• Engineering work matters; optimizing models to run faster or cheaper reduces per-request expense.
• Operational overhead such as monitoring, security, and customer support is part of the total cost to deliver inference at scale.

Why transparency about financial terms matters

When major players quietly negotiate large contracts, public debate about pricing, competition, and governance can suffer. Transparency can help several groups at once.

• Consumers and businesses considering AI services get a clearer sense of what drives price changes.
• Investors and market analysts can better model margins, growth, and risks for both cloud providers and AI companies.
• Policymakers and regulators can assess whether a partnership affects competition or creates unfair market advantage.

How inference costs shape pricing, margins and deployment choices

Inference costs feed directly into product pricing for API access, chat services, and enterprise licensing. They also influence decisions about which models to run and where to run them.

• Higher inference costs make it harder to offer low-priced or free consumer tiers without cross-subsidy from other revenue.
• Enterprises that need many queries per day consider cost per request and may prefer smaller or more optimized models for common tasks.
• Model providers can reduce costs through techniques like model quantization, batching requests, caching common responses, or using specialized hardware.
• Cloud placement decisions, such as running models on a single provider or across multiple providers, are affected by differences in price and performance.

Put simply, if running a large model becomes more expensive, providers must either raise prices, accept thinner margins, or find technical ways to lower the cost per inference.

Implications for OpenAI’s business model and customers

The leaked confirmation of a revenue share affects how observers view OpenAI’s unit economics and product pricing strategy. A few practical implications follow.

• Product pricing may reflect the need to pay a share of revenue to the cloud partner, which can lead to higher list prices for API access or enterprise features.
• OpenAI could choose different ways to absorb these costs, such as bundling services with other offerings or adjusting free tiers and quotas.
• Enterprise customers evaluating long term costs will look closely at per-call prices and any minimum commitments related to cloud infrastructure usage.
• End users may notice changes indirectly, such as limits on free usage or shifts in available feature tiers as providers balance cost and user experience.

How Microsoft benefits

Microsoft has multiple potential advantages from a close commercial relationship with a major model provider.

• Increased demand for Azure compute and storage as OpenAI scales production use of models.
• Integration and distribution through Microsoft channels, which can accelerate enterprise adoption of AI services for customers already using Microsoft software.
• Strategic value in combining cloud infrastructure and model access, which can strengthen Microsoft’s competitive position versus other cloud providers.

The leaked documents do not confirm the exact scope of exclusivity or distribution rights, so it is not appropriate to assume contractual terms beyond the reported revenue share and inference cost discussions.

Competitive and market effects

Close commercial ties between a leading model provider and a dominant cloud vendor affect multiple market participants.

• Rival cloud providers may respond by lowering prices, offering specialized hardware, or striking their own partnerships with AI companies.
• AI startups that depend on third party cloud infrastructure face pressure on margins; they may negotiate new terms or invest in cloud-agnostic deployment tools.
• Enterprise buyers must consider vendor lock in risks when contracts bundle models and cloud services together.

Regulatory and antitrust considerations

When large commercial agreements give one company significant advantages in infrastructure or distribution, regulators can take an interest. The leak increases the chance that antitrust authorities or industry regulators review how cloud and AI markets operate.

• Regulators typically examine whether agreements foreclose competition, particularly if preferential pricing or exclusive distribution is in play.
• Market concentration in cloud infrastructure is already a policy concern; a close relationship between a leading model maker and a major cloud provider complicates that picture.
• Regulatory interest may focus on transparency, fair access for competitors, and whether customers face limited choices as a result.

Angles reporters and analysts should follow next

Leaked documents often raise more questions than they answer. Further reporting and analysis can illuminate the full impact.

• Expert commentary from cloud economists and AI engineers to explain the technical meaning of inference cost disclosures.
• Historical comparables, such as past cloud and SaaS revenue share deals, to place this relationship in context.
• Financial modeling to estimate how a revenue share might influence margins and valuations for both OpenAI and Microsoft, without inventing numbers from the leak.
• Interviews with enterprise customers and startups to learn how procurement and deployment plans might change.
• Regulatory filings and reviews that could follow if authorities decide to investigate market effects.

Key takeaways and short FAQ

• Did the leak give exact payment amounts, No. The reporting confirms a revenue share and references inference costs, but it does not publish specific payment figures.
• Why do inference costs matter, They determine the expense of serving each user request and therefore influence pricing, margins, and which services are economically viable.
• Will this change prices for end users, It could. Providers may adjust pricing or product tiers as they balance infrastructure costs and the need to remain competitive.
• Could regulators get involved, Yes. Close ties between dominant cloud providers and leading model makers can draw antitrust scrutiny, especially if exclusivity or preferential access is suspected.

Conclusion

The leaked documents add clarity about how OpenAI and Microsoft work together at a commercial level, by confirming a revenue share and highlighting inference costs. Those facts matter because they link model economics to cloud infrastructure, which affects pricing, competition, and long term choices for businesses and consumers.

We should expect more reporting, expert analysis, and possibly regulatory interest as market participants and authorities assess how these arrangements shape access to AI. For everyday users, the most immediate effects are likely to appear as changes in pricing and product availability as providers respond to the same cost pressures revealed in the leak.