Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 819 posts

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#171

Post by bijowo1676 »

dgellow wrote: post #164
ValentineC wrote: post #104

> I noted that my own token usage comes to about $1,000/month against each of Anthropic and OpenAI - which currently costs me just $100 per provider thanks to their generous subsidized plans for individual subscribers. Do we know that AI providers are going to keep these per-token prices, or eventually lower them because of competition from China? Many lower-budget individuals are now moving to China open weight mode…

One aspect Paul Kedrosky mentioned recently is the concept of „duration mismatch“. The price per token goes down over time (either because the AI vendor reduces due to competition pressure, or because customers are now incentivized to use older cheaper models). But datacenters are financed through debt, with the assumption their revenue increases over time. Quoting him: „[AI vendors are] paying for a fixed cost with…

do GPU chips really depreciate physically? There are no moving parts, I dont think memory chips or GPU chips deteriorate naturally.

I think its only accounting depreciation.

I have been using my laptop for a decade, what is stopping datacenters from using the purchased GPU chips for a decade?

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#172

Post by mrothroc »

f311a wrote: post #37

How many more months do we need to wait, until big companies realize that flash models work just fine if you: 1) Don't ask LLMs for big changes 2) Review everything and point them in the right direction Large models still suck at big changes, they produce questionable architecture and you still have to review the code, if your project is serious enough. The codebase quickly become a mess, if you don't pay enough atte…

The easy decision is to just go with the biggest SOTA model you can afford.

But this overlooks the other critical part of getting the most out of these things: the harness. I run an autonomous plan/design/code/build/test pipeline with agents using my own orchestrator. Different models are better at different stages, and I use LLMs to judge the output between them. Not everything needs Opus 4.8.

The harness provides both the scaffolding to get the right things into the model, and the right things out. But it also lets you dictate which model does which work.

It's the pipeline, not the model, that gets you quality at a given token budget.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#173

Post by cyanydeez »

pqtyw wrote: post #101
CharlieDigital wrote: post #4

$1500/mo is $18,000/seat/annum. Maybe Microsoft and Nvidia are on to something. 128 GB machines that can run local LLMs are a bargain even if priced $5-8k. Yes, tok/s is not quite there, but that's probably OK since the bottleneck really isn't the code; it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? How did it meaningfully impact their revenue in a positive direction?

How is tok/s not a bottleneck I? I assume most people still use ai agents interactively rather than leaving them to do their own thing during the night. I find anything below 50 tps or so entirely unusable... Regardless its Apples to oranges anyway, inference is quite cheap for open weight models its just that Claude and OpenAI can charge very high margins compared to e.g. DeepSeek or various provider on OpenRouter s…

It's not a bottleneck if you care about the actual code.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#174

Post by [deleted] »

mrweasel wrote: post #133
mvdtnz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are smaller non-IT companies "screwed" because they can't pay out the nose for their developers' AI usage? They're non-IT companies, developers are presumably not on their critical path, or not their bottleneck. Developers can keep on writing code the old way, or doing it with a more reasonable AI spend. I don't see how this "screws" any company.

That was badly worded on my part, my intend was to indicate that there was no way they can or will pay $1500 per month per seat.

[deleted]

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#175

Post by pixelesque »

anthonypasq wrote: post #152
tuesdaynight wrote: post #138

Why there are so many people that still believe that AI coding is a fad? It's something that started less than two years ago and companies are already paying thousands per seat. I know one that gives you 5k per month. Which other tool went from nothing to this level of acceptance so quickly?

perhaps the personal computer? Companies were spending 3-5k (10-15k inflation adjusted) on every employee for just hardware. everyone making comparisons to the dotcom bubble seems misguided. this is clearly computing 2.0 imo

Hardware's not generally a subscription, monthly cost though.

You update it for them every 3/4 years (if they're lucky).

It probably makes a bit more sense to compare it to existing software subscriptions like Office, or the old-school 'per-seat' licenses per user for software.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#176

Post by dgellow »

bijowo1676 wrote: post #171
dgellow wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One aspect Paul Kedrosky mentioned recently is the concept of „duration mismatch“. The price per token goes down over time (either because the AI vendor reduces due to competition pressure, or because customers are now incentivized to use older cheaper models). But datacenters are financed through debt, with the assumption their revenue increases over time. Quoting him: „[AI vendors are] paying for a fixed cost with…

do GPU chips really depreciate physically? There are no moving parts, I dont think memory chips or GPU chips deteriorate naturally. I think its only accounting depreciation. I have been using my laptop for a decade, what is stopping datacenters from using the purchased GPU chips for a decade?

GPU do depreciate indeed, but here the depreciating commodity is the token, not the hardware. You sell cheaper token with the same hardware

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#178

Post by amunozo »

freediddy wrote: post #149
ValentineC wrote: post #104

> I noted that my own token usage comes to about $1,000/month against each of Anthropic and OpenAI - which currently costs me just $100 per provider thanks to their generous subsidized plans for individual subscribers. Do we know that AI providers are going to keep these per-token prices, or eventually lower them because of competition from China? Many lower-budget individuals are now moving to China open weight mode…

Most sane US companies will disallow use of cloud-based Chinese AI providers, because everything including code, data, PII, etc is being sent to them.

You can run DeepSeek as it's open weights, unlike Claude or GPT.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#179

Post by ricardobayes »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #4

$1500/mo is $18,000/seat/annum. Maybe Microsoft and Nvidia are on to something. 128 GB machines that can run local LLMs are a bargain even if priced $5-8k. Yes, tok/s is not quite there, but that's probably OK since the bottleneck really isn't the code; it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? How did it meaningfully impact their revenue in a positive direction?

128GB machines can't run anything locally that is even nearly as capable as a frontier model like Claude. We can get an idea from deepseek v4 pro being 1.6T model, requiring approx. 860GB VRAM to run.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#180

Post by rd »

freediddy wrote: post #149
ValentineC wrote: post #104

> I noted that my own token usage comes to about $1,000/month against each of Anthropic and OpenAI - which currently costs me just $100 per provider thanks to their generous subsidized plans for individual subscribers. Do we know that AI providers are going to keep these per-token prices, or eventually lower them because of competition from China? Many lower-budget individuals are now moving to China open weight mode…

Most sane US companies will disallow use of cloud-based Chinese AI providers, because everything including code, data, PII, etc is being sent to them.

I wonder if I could start a US-based company with good data regulation and just serve open-weight models at a competitive price. I feel like the real barrier is just that most companies willing to adopt AI usage enough to make it worth it at this point don't want to be using inferior models.
Post reply on HN