General-purpose AI agents could become a distribution battle before they become profitable

My uncomfortable prediction: over the next six months, distribution and pricing may matter more than small feature differences between general-purpose agents. Imagine two products that both produce an acceptable spreadsheet, research summary, or slide deck. One requires a new subscription and another login. The other appears inside software you already use and includes free credits. The second product doesn’t need to be dramatically better to get chosen. If users struggle to notice differences in ordinary tasks, existing customer access, bundling, and subsidies become powerful advantages. That would favor incumbents with established distribution and enough money to absorb early usage costs. But “people tried it” is a weak victory. An agent can attract users while losing money on the work it performs. The important question is whether customers stay when free credits end, and whether their payments cover inference, support, and acquisition. Product quality still matters where mistakes are expensive or one agent needs substantially less supervision. My claim is narrower: modest improvements may be hard to monetize when a bundled alternative is good enough. Which difference would actually make you leave a free, bundled agent and pay for another one?