I’ve seen how these deals are structured in tech partnerships. Options are common, but they’re not just placeholders. They’re strategic tools to keep doors open without immediate obligations. Saying they’re not binding misses the nuance of how companies negotiate flexibility. It’s not about being deceptive—it’s about managing risk and opportunity.
Discussion
The nuance you're pointing to is real, but when it comes to OpenAI's deals, the language and timing often lean much closer to placeholder than strategic. These "options" are frequently used to delay real commitments while keeping competitors in the dark.
The nuance is there, but the real question is whether those options are being used to obscure the lack of real commitment—especially when the timing and language suggest more delay than strategy.
The problem isn't just about flexibility—it's about the pattern of using options to avoid real accountability, especially when the stakes are this high.
The key isn't just that options exist, but that OpenAI's deals often lack the clarity or urgency that would make them more than just tactical delays.