>You don't feel they want to give you a dependable service for an, albeit premium, price. It's a constant bargaining game
We all know that the subscription prices are not at all sustainable for these providers. You all do, right?
Yes, they're struggling to segment the market and find a way to make money, and that basically relies upon emptying the pockets of whales. As someone enjoying a hilariously subsidized Max plan, I understand that, and I don't think they're trying to scam me in some way.
And both sides of this equation understand that the market is competitive, and maybe more competitive than they thought it would be. Like, would you rather they did pull Fable when they first said they would? Or that they'd cut quota? I wouldn't. But I'm glad that Kimi K3 and GPT 5.6 Sol and the latest GLM and Qwen and...I love that this has forced Anthropic to change plans. I'm not going to hold that against them.
> We all know that the subscription prices are not at all sustainable for these providers. You all do, right?
I don’t think it is fair to expect from people to know or understand this.
If you buy something or subscribe to a service there is a price tag on it.
You get X for Y amount of price.
That is how consumers conditioned for decades. They do not care what is your customer acquisition strategy. If Antrophic cannot provide reliable services on that price, customers will be unsatisfied.
>If Antrophic cannot provide reliable services on that price, customers will be unsatisfied.
The complaint wasn't "I paid for X and now they say they aren't going to give me X", it was "I paid for X, and they said hey guess what we're doing a promo and you get a bonus extra 2X, and also you get special limited time access to our new product Y", that's a hell of a thing to complain about.
Look, I pay a lot of money to Anthropic and I'm pretty happy that competitors have forced them to abandon their plans to add premium charges on these bonuses, but it's pretty ridiculous seeing the whining and gnashing, somehow turning this into complaints. It very much has a "oh no my lobster is too buttery, my blanket too warm" kind of feel to it.
Do you have actual data on the marginal costs of inferencing, or are you using the term 'subsedizing' loosely as in 'discount', meaning a lower price compared to another price for the same offer?
Look up the burn rate for OpenAI and Anthropic. Despite the fact that these companies have managed to hook a lot of F500 companies into paying millions for token-level API pricing, they are bleeding cash at a catastrophic rate. And we know subscription tokens come at about a 1/30th the cost of the API pricing (presuming you use your quota).
Yes, they are most certainly subsidizing the subscription plans. I mean, at least for people who utilize them to the quota.
I dont see why user should care. OK, they are selling at loss so that they can build a monopoly. That is not something positive or good, not something to cheer on.
We all know that the subscription prices are not at all sustainable for these providers. You all do, right?
Yes, they're struggling to segment the market and find a way to make money, and that basically relies upon emptying the pockets of whales. As someone enjoying a hilariously subsidized Max plan, I understand that, and I don't think they're trying to scam me in some way.
And both sides of this equation understand that the market is competitive, and maybe more competitive than they thought it would be. Like, would you rather they did pull Fable when they first said they would? Or that they'd cut quota? I wouldn't. But I'm glad that Kimi K3 and GPT 5.6 Sol and the latest GLM and Qwen and...I love that this has forced Anthropic to change plans. I'm not going to hold that against them.