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

Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

blog.kilocode.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#321

Post by tsoukase »

bayindirh wrote: post #259
tsoukase wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All-you-can-eat allowance at restaurans comes to mind

I went to a particular sports bar back in the day. They have "all you can eat ribs" plate. The first comes fully treated with sauce and is very, very delicious. When you order the second plate, it comes without the sauce and it tastes flatter. You're filled at this point and you can't order the third. Very creative and fun if you ask me. I was prepared for this though, because the people we went together said how it'…

I was thinking about self serviced "buffet", where the lowest quality starts from then first plate.

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#322

Post by rrrx3 »

I use my $20/mo plan with Claude Code pretty happily, regularly hitting the limits through the day at a good pace, with nice cool-downs in between while I wait.

I promise I’m not being snarky here - I don’t understand how people are burning through their $200/mo plan usage so quickly. Are they spamming prompts? Not using planning mode? I’ve seen a few folks running multiple instances at once… is that more common than I think?

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#323

Post by cadamsdotcom »

In Australia they outlawed advertising “unlimited” broadband, because it was a deceptive term. Providers actually meant “slower than a modem after a certain amount of download”.

Everyone was better off without the deception. Now we are in the early days of AI. Providers should be honest but won’t until forced to.

Because just think about it. Unlimited is untenable. Another example, in the early days of broadband in Australia a friend’s parents were visited by a Telstra manager because he “downloaded more than his entire suburb”. A manager!

Really you can’t blame the providers; some users will ruin it for everyone. I am not saying that is anyone specific. But none of this should surprise us. We’ve been here before. Just look back at how other markets developed & you will see patterns that tell you what’s next.

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#325

Post by blitzar »

apwell23 wrote: post #213
blitzar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ate all my vegetables at dinner, you promised tv if I ate all the broccoli.

you ate too much dessert that we left it out. you were supposed to know not eat too much.

It was a cupcake, was I meant to lick it and put the rest back?

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#326

Post by danaris »

aeon_ai wrote: post #263
jraph wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which one wins? We don't really know yet, that's my point. There are contradictory studies on the topic. See for instance [1] that sees productivity decrease when AI is used. Other studies show the opposite. We are also seeing the first wave of blog posts from developers abandoning the LLMs. What's more, most people are not masters. This is critically important. If only masters see a productivity increase, others s…

There's a clear difference between "I have used these tools, tested their limits, and have opinions" and "I am consuming media narratives about why AI is bad" AI presently has a far lower footprint on the globe than the meat industry -- The US Beef industry alone far outpaces the impact of AI. As far as "work pillaging" - There is cognitive dissonance in supporting the freedom of information/cultural progress and sim…

> There's a clear difference between...

There's also a clear difference between users of this site that come here for all types of content, and users who have "AI" in their usernames.

I think that the latter type might just have a bit of a bias in this matter?

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#327

Post by tzumaoli »

NiloCK wrote: post #137
conartist6 wrote: post #32

"I firmly believe that AI will not replace developers, but a developer using AI will replace a developer who does not." Ugh, anyone who says that and really believes it can no longer see common sense through the hype goggles. It's just stupid and completely 100% wrong, like saying all musicians will use autotune in the future because it makes the music better. It's the same as betting that there will be no new invent…

Do the people in this corner use compilers? Would they agree that programmers who don't use them* have been replaced by those that do? *: I'm aware of cases like the recent ffmpg assembly usage that gave a big performance boost. When talking about industrial trend lines, I'm OK with admitting 0.001% exceptions. (Apologies if it comes across as snarky or pat, but I honestly think the comparison is reasonable.)

When Fortran came out, I don't think a lot of people yelled at the assembly programmers and told them "learn Fortran or be replaced".

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#328

Post by aspenmayer »

ibaikov wrote: post #140
energy123 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and OpenAI have done similar things with their LLM offerings. Gemini Advanced offered 2.5 Pro with nearly unlimited rate limits, then nerfed it to 100/day. OpenAI silently nerfed the maximum context window of reasoning models in their Pro plan. Accompanying the nerf is usually a psy op, like nerfing to 50/day then increasing it to 100/day so the anchoring effect reduces the grievance. It's a smart ploy because…

I wonder if that's actually illegal, because it feels very close to false ads etc. It seems legal, but I think courts would side with customers. As if google would say that yes, emails are $5/mo, but there's actually a limit on number of emails daily, and also number of characters in the email. It just feels so illegal to nerf a product that much. Same with AI companies changing routing and making models dumber from…

If there is a material difference in the product that causes you to no longer feel that it's the same as it was when you subscribed, it could be considered a bait and switch? I think as soon as you notice that this is the case, you should probably stop paying them though, otherwise you might seem to accept this state of affairs. If you had a long term contract that didn't have some kind of language that tried to prevent this from happening in the first place, you could probably get out from under that contract by saying that the deal has essentially changed out from under you, but I think a lawyer might make that argument much better than me.

I'm not sure what harm you think you're suffering from, and what a proper remedy might be, if you think it's illegal. I don't know if I would go that far, as there are all kinds of words most terms of service use to somehow make it so that you have already acknowledged and agreed to whatever they decide to do. So a lawyer will probably be helpful there as well.

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#329

Post by wat10000 »

raverbashing wrote: post #313
wat10000 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlimited means for a flat rate. Pay per use/item, like at the supermarket, isn’t it.

Still, you can't get "unlimited" soup cans from your next door supermarket even paying

Which is why they don’t sell it as “unlimited.” The gripe isn’t that there are limits, it’s that it’s sold as “unlimited” but there are limits.

Re: Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

#330

Post by croemer »

diggan wrote: post #228
ponyous wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

€170 + 21.5% (Irish VAT rate) is €206.55. So not sure what you expected. One complain though in EU B2C companies must show prices with VAT included.

> €170 + 21.5% (Irish VAT rate) is €206.55. So not sure what you expected. Parent clearly stated they only saw "€170+VAT" and not €206.55, so of course they expected to see €206.55 before the purchase went through. Not sure what anyone else would expect?

Even the ex VAT price is wrong. It should always just be 206.55 - can't tease low price first ex tax.
Post reply on HN