$500B in valuation by the way, ladies and gentlemen...
Inspiration: Earlier conversations on Threads and now, OpenAI introducing ChatGPT Atlas.
It’s almost like the market did not learn from its past, but hey, maybe this could create another buying opportunity.
Today, OpenAI introduced ChatGPT Atlas and the internet was filled with news articles of how “Alphabet stock falls after OpenAI launches browser“.
Once again, the market, desperate for a narrative, portrays a new “Chrome Killer.”
Yet, if you too understand how digital products, user experience design, and incentives work, you will also see that this is such an overreaction to a very, very poor product.
Yes, granted, at version zero, but we are talking about a company which has already reached half a trillion dollars in valuation – not your little The Browsing Company with its Arc.
So, let’s talk about what the Atlas (ironically named after a Titan, and a book of maps, which will most likely endure more pain ahead).
Once you finish reading here, you too will see that “Atlas” is not a revolution; it’s a high-cost feature in search of a problem.
The writing will be separated into following sections for you to digest better:
- Part 1: The Product Critique — “Talking to a Browser” is Flawed UX
- Part 2: The Strategic Missteps — Conflicting Motives & Partners
- Part 3: Google’s Unbeatable Moat
- Part 4: The Real Threat (And Why This Isn’t It)
Insert Product Demo: The Market’s Overreaction
Live product demos are fun these days.
Not knowing if the demonstration will fail or not, the dopamine receptors have more fun these days thanks to the tech superstars.
First, let’s quickly go over the demo. Here’s the link.
To help you save time, the entire demo can be summarized as the following.
Atlas is a “conversational” or “agentic” browser that “talks” to you, remembers your activity, and takes action on your behalf.
Cool, right?
Well, first of all, Gemini in Chrome (the most dominant browser in the market) already does that. Here’s the video of it, from more than a month ago.
Part 1: The Product Critique — “Talking to a Browser” is Flawed UX
The idea of talking to a browser (like a personal agent) sounds fun on paper, but you need to understand that locking the functionality into a browser may be counterproductive.
Everything can be agentic. But not everything should be agentic.
Talking to a browser is not the ideal UX for 99% of web activity.
Conversational UI is a clunky interface.
The core premise is flawed. Browsing is 90% passive consumption (reading, watching) or rapid, goal-oriented clicks (finding a product, checking an email).
Especially if you remember most browsing is passive viewing or simple navigation, not a complex, active “task” that requires a chatbot.
A “conversational” layer adds unnecessary friction and cognitive load to a process that users have optimized for speed. People don’t want a conversation; they want a link.
The “Mobile-First” Blind Spot
Similar to how the not-so-successful Arc browser did, OpenAI decided to launch the app on macOS, not Windows, first.
This is a classic “Silicon Valley bubble” move. By launching on macOS first, they have crippled their own market penetration.
Also, the launch is desktop-first.
This is a critical error in a world where mobile is the dominant surfing experience (over 60% of all web traffic).This is a massive, immediate gap that shows a disconnect from real-world user behaviour.
They have ignored the Windows OS, which holds over 70% of the global desktop market. This immediately cuts off the vast majority of potential users.
This signals a fundamental disconnect from how the majority of the planet uses the web, making it a niche tool, not a mass-market-ready product.
Also, even on their chosen battlefield (macOS), they face an uphill battle.
They aren’t just competing with Chrome; they’re competing with Safari, which is deeply integrated, battery-efficient, and the beloved default for most Mac users.
Google’s “Feature” vs. OpenAI’s “Product”
Remember, everything can be agentic, but not everything has to be.
Gemini is already being integrated into Chrome.
This makes AI an ambient feature within an existing workflow, which is far superior to forcing users to adopt an entirely new product (a new browser) to get AI.
The “Cold Start” Problem
“Atlas” isn’t just competing with Chrome’s features; it’s competing with a user’s entire digital life.
The friction of switching is simply too high.
Users would have to abandon decades of saved passwords, bookmarks, and browsing history.
Extension Ecosystem is also taken for granted.
Chrome’s true power is its vast extension library (password managers, ad blockers, dev tools). “Atlas” has none of this, making it a non-starter for any power user.
If anything, the are trying to become the app that connects to other platforms, rather than being a platform with apps.
Go figure…
Part 2: The Strategic Missteps — Conflicting Motives & Partners
This move is also going to hurt OpenAI’s growth and the reliability as a partner.
Alienating Apple
The choice to launch such a product, especially on MacOS is direct, hostile attack on Safari and Siri, launched just as OpenAI’s landmark partnership to integrate ChatGPT into iOS is rolling out.
It’s a baffling move that creates immediate, high-stakes conflict with a critical distribution partner.
That’s pretty important, as the distribution is everything.
Cannibalizing Microsoft
This doesn’t just alienate Apple. OpenAI’s biggest investor, Microsoft, has been desperately trying to make Edge the “AI browser” (powered by GPT).
“Atlas” now directly competes with its most important distribution partner, creating massive channel conflict (unless this is a 400 IQ move, knowing they will get acquired by Microsoft once the AI bubble bursts).
This is a Token-Burn Play, Not a Revolution
This move is likely a push to increase token use and justify ChatGPT subscriptions.
An “agentic” browser that is constantly “thinking” and “remembering” will consume an enormous amount of compute—a direct cost that OpenAI has to pass on to the user.
The “Parasite” Problem (Crawlers & Data)
This move deepens the web’s animosity toward OpenAI.
Here is a quick comparison:
Google (Symbiote): Publishers allow Googlebot because it’s a symbiotic relationship. Google crawls, indexes, and sends them valuable referral traffic.
OpenAI (Parasite): Publishers (The New York Times, CNN, etc.) actively block GPTBot. It scrapes their content for training, provides no traffic in return, and then regurgitates their work, cannibalizing their audience. “Atlas” is a vehicle to accelerate this parasitic behaviour.
The Ultimate Irony: Dependency on the Incumbent
The launch video itself is the most telling admission of defeat.
Ironically, to demonstrate its “power,” “Atlas” was shown interacting with Gmail and Google Docs.
They cannot even demo their “Chrome Killer” without living inside Google’s world, proving that Google’s ecosystem is the platform, and “Atlas” is just a guest.
The “CursorChat” feature is a prime example. It’s a glorified “right-click, rephrase” function.
This isn’t revolutionary; it’s a feature that has existed in writing apps (like Grammarly) and Google’s own tools for years. It’s an add-on, not a system seller.
Part 3: Google’s Unbeatable Moat
I am sure you can list a few already.
The Enterprise Security Nightmare
Cybersecurity is way out of my domain expertise, but my gut feeling says “memory” is the kill-shot for enterprise adoption.
The “Memory” Leak: A browser with a persistent “memory” of all user activity is a massive security and data leak risk.
A browser with a persistent, cloud-based memory of all user activity (internal wikis, financial data, HR portals, customer lists) is a catastrophic security risk.
The “Memory” feature is the single biggest reason “Atlas” will fail in the enterprise.
Google Workspace (Docs, Drive, Gmail) and Chrome are a single, secure, and managed enterprise package. No CISO will ever approve a fleet-wide rollout of an unmanaged third-party browser that has “agentic” capabilities to read and act on all proprietary company data.
Lastly, an “agentic” browser that is constantly “remembering,” “analyzing,” and “acting” is not a browser; it’s a service.
Google’s “Free” vs. OpenAI’s “Premium”
The web is built on Google’s ad-monetization incentive. Chrome is “free” because it’s the efficient delivery mechanism for Google’s $200B+ ad engine.
What is the “Atlas” business model? A $20/month subscription to… browse the web? This is a non-starter for 99.9% of users.
This is one of the things I like about Google (rather than being a tech bro). They understand that the internet is not just about the US. It is everyone, everywhere, with access to the worldwide web, not the San Francisco-wide web.
The Web is Chrome
Google is the web. Through the open-source Chromium engine, Google dictates web standards.
The web is built for Chrome and Google Ads.
They can build and optimize new technologies (like Gemini) at the engine level, forcing everyone else (including “Atlas,” which is likely built on Chromium) to play catch-up constantly.
The Real Threat To Chrome is Not a “Smarter Browser”
By now, you are probably wondering, if this ain’t it, then what is the real threat, fam?
Well, fam, “Atlas” is a distraction.
“Atlas” is just a (clunky) feature on top of the existing browsing paradigm.
The true threat to Google’s dominance isn’t a new piece of software. It’s a new hardware paradigm.
Think AR/VR devices (like Meta Quests, Orion or other smart glasses, or Apple Vision Pros) are becoming more popular and accessible.
The future isn’t “talking to a browser.” It’s an interactive or generative UI that replaces the browser.
AR/VR will fundamentally change the “browsing” experience. A 2D-based browser is an antique in a 3D spatial world. This is where the foundation cracks.
The “next platform shift” will be an ambient, generative interface that pulls information from the web without forcing you to browse it manually.
The market’s reaction (in terms of noise and price action) is short-sighted. A new browser does not threaten Google’s position.
The real disruption will be a genuine platform shift.
“Atlas” is a better horseless carriage; Google is safe until someone invents the car.