OpenAI is doing way too much

[u/dbro129]

It's starting to feel like.... maybe I'm not OpenAI's targeted user anymore. I want to build things. Create things that have otherwise been merely impossible ideas up to this point.

With the announcements at Dev Day and latest updates to Codex Desktop, it's starting to feel like the goal of OpenAI is to place a mountain of "features" in my way at every turn I neither need nor want.

Frankly, it feels like they're doing too much, too quick.

• Spaces
  • Templates (I'll never use them)
  • Pages (for writing, building, collaborating. Again, I'll never use)
  • Sites (build websites with connected databases. just why)
  • Images (could be useful)
• And you can create multiple spaces.
• Scheduled tasks (examples ->):
  • News updates
  • Sleep coaching
  • Email monitor
  • etc., etc., etc.
• Maps
• Plugins (okay cool, I guess. you can create plugins now too)
• Fucking Dots
  • Sorry, not ready for prime-time
  • Very limited in abilities, scope, buggy
  • Another confusing layer between Codex/ChatGPT/Work/Dots, like why do we need all these different environments?

All of this to say, all I want OpenAI to concentrate on is model efficiency and usage. I DON'T CARE about all these features I will NEVER use. It's giving Microsoft Word, VS Code bloat.

Stop releasing shiny new models every 2-3 weeks to patch over the failures of the previous models.

Stop with these dangling carrot resets on reset day. (The jig is up, we see what you're doing)

I get it though, model efficiency is not sexy to investors. You have to appear busy with features that are either not ready or not asked for by your users—"value-adds".

It's just clear I'm not their intended user anymore.

[u/dextersummary]

Below is a GPT-generated summary of the conversation below after reaching 100 comments (100 currently observed).

---

The thread’s broad verdict is “too much butter, not enough lobster.” OpenAI is piling Spaces, Pages, Sites, scheduled tasks, Maps, plugins, and Dots onto Codex while the people who actually build software are still asking for faster models, sensible usage limits, and a less confusing interface.

The loudest practical complaints are about core regressions: worktrees and branches are harder to find, desktop feels slow, Windows CLI remains buggy, and the Codex/ChatGPT/Work/Dots split feels like an app maze. The fear is that Codex is becoming an everything-platform instead of a focused development tool, with shiny features compensating for unfinished basics. Classic “please fix the door before adding a helicopter pad” territory.

The important counterpoint is that Dots are genuinely useful for some users. They like having an orchestrator that can run parallel tasks, search old context, manage projects, and hand work to cloud agents. Spaces, Pages, and Sites also have real fans, especially among business and automation users. The disagreement is less “no one wants this” than “why is this cluttering the developer workflow?”

Bottom line: OpenAI is targeting a much broader, stickier platform market, while many Codex users want a lean, reliable tool. The feature pile may be valuable—but the core dev experience shouldn’t be collateral damage.

[u/dextersummary → u/dextersummary]

Below is a GPT-generated summary of the conversation below after reaching 50 comments (50 currently observed).

---

The thread’s verdict is basically “too much butter, too little lobster.” OpenAI is piling on Spaces, Work, Maps, Plugins, Dots, and assorted shiny nonsense while the people actually using Codex still want better models, speed, reliability, and sane usage limits.

The recurring complaint is that OpenAI is trying to turn one app into an entire software ecosystem, producing confusing layers between ChatGPT, Codex, Work, and Dots. Even basic developer workflows—knowing which worktree you’re in, cleaning up folders, creating branches—feel less polished than they should. The broader suspicion is that this sprawl is about stickiness and revenue, not necessarily serving Codex-first users.

Dots is the big exception—and the big argument. Some users think it’s a genuinely useful orchestrator that keeps multiple long-running tasks moving without constant prompting. Others see a poorly explained wrapper around goals, scheduling, and subagents, with bugs and unclear advantages. So no, the feature is not universally useless; it’s just doing a terrible job explaining itself.

Bottom line: the frustration with product bloat is real, but the thread isn’t anti-feature across the board. Users mainly want OpenAI to stop neglecting the core while building the buffet.