I think the reasons for them going with API pricing will become abundantly clear when the S-1s become available. If they don't have a story covering how they can get revenue closer to expenses, then they're relying on the market to believe the pixie dust version of their profitability story, which I think people increasingly don't.
I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
31–40 of 1001 posts
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#32> $2,180.16 worth of tokens for $200 “Tokens” don’t have an intrisic cost or value. Saying that I used $2,180.16 worth of tokens is like relying on the salesperson to convince me I’m getting a billion dollars worth of pots and pans for $19.99. I think it’s funny how we are throwing critical thinking out the window when it comes to evaluating biased sources of info.
I'm not sure what you're pushing back against here. I spent $200. If I had been paying API pricing it would have been $2,180.16. The article is about how enterprise customers get charged API pricing, which means if I had been employed by one of those companies I would have cost them $2,180.16. What am I missing?
Large enterprises make deals and won’t be paying 2,180.16$ either. Just like with AWS
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#33The costs are exorbitant and most software is not produced by companies with such a huge moat. Anthropic made a profit through their recent bait amd switch pricing. There is zero useful insights online to indicate whether this might die due to commoditisation with good enough open models or fail the race to get more people subsidising unsustainable growth with other people’s money. Who knows? In any case they dont seem to be able to drop usage costs so the business model seems based on wishes
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#34How is the lack of bad news declaring a victory for AI? I am yet to see any company concretely publish analysis about the ROI from AI. Most companies as far as I know are still treating AI investment as sunk cost with no expectation of returns at the moment. We could very well see a world where companies heavily scale back investment.
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#35> $2,180.16 worth of tokens for $200 “Tokens” don’t have an intrisic cost or value. Saying that I used $2,180.16 worth of tokens is like relying on the salesperson to convince me I’m getting a billion dollars worth of pots and pans for $19.99. I think it’s funny how we are throwing critical thinking out the window when it comes to evaluating biased sources of info.
I think it's funnier that you can believe some things have an intrinsic cost and others don't
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#36Does this analysis factor in potential caching of tokens on the server side? It seems that if they organize things well (as a model provider), they can save quite a lot on that. Looking at my Cursor statistics makes it clear that the token calculations are not at all trivial.
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#37Great article I know this upsets a lot of people who are used to thinking Anthropic/OpenAI are just lighting cash on fire but they've cornered the market on enterprise who cannot walk away from these $200/month plans However the valuations are still far far away from actual sanity
Have you tried the large open source code models? I use glm-5.1 and occasionally deep seek v4. They are as good or better than Claude's latest models. And significantly cheaper. I've converted 3 of my engineer friends as well. All three have dropped their $200 month plans they had with anthropic. We've all been a bit shocked at just how good these models are now. If you "have" tried GLM (I specifically find it shocki…
I use GLM-5.1.
It's good enough for personal stuff. It doesn't compare to the latest Opus I use at work. You can certainly argue I don't need Opus for work, but there is clearly a difference.
Also, at least with z.ai, GLM-5.1 is s l o w! After using Claude at work, I get really impatient with GLM-5.1 at home. When doing "true" vibe coding (i.e. not really examining the code), Opus is a ton faster (easily 5x).
But yeah, I'm not willing to personally pay for the frontier models. I won't even renew my annual Z.ai plan - it's become too expensive.
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#38[dead]
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you're pushing back against here. I spent $200. If I had been paying API pricing it would have been $2,180.16. The article is about how enterprise customers get charged API pricing, which means if I had been employed by one of those companies I would have cost them $2,180.16. What am I missing?
Large enterprises make deals and won’t be paying 2,180.16$ either. Just like with AWS
That doesn't seem to be the case. From what I've seen enterprise deals get API pricing now. Have you seen evidence that's not true?
Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you're pushing back against here. I spent $200. If I had been paying API pricing it would have been $2,180.16. The article is about how enterprise customers get charged API pricing, which means if I had been employed by one of those companies I would have cost them $2,180.16. What am I missing?
Large enterprises make deals and won’t be paying 2,180.16$ either. Just like with AWS
And "large" just means that AWS will assign an account manager to talk with you. I was at a start-up who spent $300k/year on AWS and that was enough to get special attention and discounts. Enterprise pricing is confusing.