9 ms·

> so that when the subsidies end and subscription costs shoot up Subscription costs are capped to API rates as their ceiling (and, realistically, way lower tha

> so that when the subsidies end and subscription costs shoot up Subscription costs are capped to API rates as their ceiling (and, realistically, way lower than that - why would you even subscribe if you could just go pay-what-you-use instead), and those are already at a big margin for Anthropic. What still costs them a fuckton of money comparatively is training, but that is only going to get more efficient with more purpose-built hardware on the way. Basicallly, I don’t see much of a reason to hike subscription prices dramatically. I don’t think they’ll stay at $100/$200 but anyone who’s paying that already knows how much value they’re getting out of that and probably wouldn’t mind paying more.

OJFord 7mo ago
I'm not sure what you mean, if you max out your subscription perhaps? If you pay $100 and don't use it, you don't get refunded $100 because it's 'capped to API rates' which would've been 0.
- ffsm8 7mo ago
  He means that anthropic cannot increase the price of the sub because the users can just switch to the regular API pricing which consequently puts a ceiling on the cost of the sub. Nobody would use a $1k sub if using the API pricing would only cost $500 for comparative service. For the record, I'm only explaining what he put forward. I don't agree with the opinion, mainly for two reasons: The API cost can be increased in conjunction, hence the ceiling is just as variable The harness is even more important then the model ime, and Claude Code is getting better every month. Even though the alternatives are getting better too, they're at least currently significantly worse IME - I'd say at least 3-6 months behind (compounded by the model, ofc). And as a third point, unrelated to the original argument: there is no way anthropic is actually treating the sub as a loss leader. It is not cheap. It's only cheap compared to their API pricing, which they can freely set however they want. Compare their pricing to free models like Kimi k2.5 etc. I sincerely doubt anthropics model costs more to run then theirs, and they're profitable at 30% of the price anthropic charges.
  - thepasch 7mo ago
    > He means that anthropic cannot increase the price of the sub because the users can just switch to the regular API pricing Not that they cannot increase the price, just that there's a cap on how high they realistically can go. Sure, they can always hike API prices to compensate, but I think people are seriously sleeping on open models these days, because… > *The harness is even more important then the model ime*, and Claude Code is getting better every month. …I fully agree with this, and that’s actually the other reason why I don’t think we’ll approach predatory pricing. Right now, the moat is still mostly the model, but as open models improve and become more capable, this is quickly going to shift. And the truth is that Claude Code just isn’t that great of a harness. Anyone who uses an open-source harness and optimizes it for their personal, individual workflow will quickly realize this. And I’m not even blaming Anthropic or the CC team or calling them incompetent; they are in the unenviable position to have been trailblazers. There weren’t any comparable tools before CC that they could’ve learned from. The future lies in harnesses that are multi-model, extensible, and have full access to and control over the model’s API, context, and system prompt. Claude Code has none of those things. You can only ever bend it into a shape that approximates your workflow; you can never use it as a tool that natively supports it.
    - ffsm8 7mo ago
      Oh, on that we can agree on! I was using opencode for the last few months, the main reason I went back to cc was for opus, and me preferring the sub over regular API pricing as I'm not using it professionally, only as a hobby. (At work I'm constrained to Copilot. Which is fine at this point, not great but definitely improving - esp. when run as CLI) I am still hoping for a local first model approach with voice command to generate the main prompt which starts of the plan mode. Like interactively going through the project while pointing at files or in the UI and possibly browser via the mouse and explaining while "talking" with a dumber but super quick model that acts as a questioner, to wrap things up with higher latency over the wire with the highly capable models. I suspect that approach is still a few months to years away from viability for latency reasons, but I'm definitely looking forward to that UX
blks 7mo ago
Now huge amount of investment pays for training. This investment expects some returns, to be able to both turn profit and continue the training, rates must be much, much higher.

OJFord 7mo ago

I'm not sure what you mean, if you max out your subscription perhaps? If you pay $100 and don't use it, you don't get refunded $100 because it's 'capped to API rates' which would've been 0.

ffsm8 7mo ago
He means that anthropic cannot increase the price of the sub because the users can just switch to the regular API pricing which consequently puts a ceiling on the cost of the sub. Nobody would use a $1k sub if using the API pricing would only cost $500 for comparative service. For the record, I'm only explaining what he put forward. I don't agree with the opinion, mainly for two reasons: The API cost can be increased in conjunction, hence the ceiling is just as variable The harness is even more important then the model ime, and Claude Code is getting better every month. Even though the alternatives are getting better too, they're at least currently significantly worse IME - I'd say at least 3-6 months behind (compounded by the model, ofc). And as a third point, unrelated to the original argument: there is no way anthropic is actually treating the sub as a loss leader. It is not cheap. It's only cheap compared to their API pricing, which they can freely set however they want. Compare their pricing to free models like Kimi k2.5 etc. I sincerely doubt anthropics model costs more to run then theirs, and they're profitable at 30% of the price anthropic charges.
- thepasch 7mo ago
  > He means that anthropic cannot increase the price of the sub because the users can just switch to the regular API pricing Not that they cannot increase the price, just that there's a cap on how high they realistically can go. Sure, they can always hike API prices to compensate, but I think people are seriously sleeping on open models these days, because… > *The harness is even more important then the model ime*, and Claude Code is getting better every month. …I fully agree with this, and that’s actually the other reason why I don’t think we’ll approach predatory pricing. Right now, the moat is still mostly the model, but as open models improve and become more capable, this is quickly going to shift. And the truth is that Claude Code just isn’t that great of a harness. Anyone who uses an open-source harness and optimizes it for their personal, individual workflow will quickly realize this. And I’m not even blaming Anthropic or the CC team or calling them incompetent; they are in the unenviable position to have been trailblazers. There weren’t any comparable tools before CC that they could’ve learned from. The future lies in harnesses that are multi-model, extensible, and have full access to and control over the model’s API, context, and system prompt. Claude Code has none of those things. You can only ever bend it into a shape that approximates your workflow; you can never use it as a tool that natively supports it.
  - ffsm8 7mo ago
    Oh, on that we can agree on! I was using opencode for the last few months, the main reason I went back to cc was for opus, and me preferring the sub over regular API pricing as I'm not using it professionally, only as a hobby. (At work I'm constrained to Copilot. Which is fine at this point, not great but definitely improving - esp. when run as CLI) I am still hoping for a local first model approach with voice command to generate the main prompt which starts of the plan mode. Like interactively going through the project while pointing at files or in the UI and possibly browser via the mouse and explaining while "talking" with a dumber but super quick model that acts as a questioner, to wrap things up with higher latency over the wire with the highly capable models. I suspect that approach is still a few months to years away from viability for latency reasons, but I'm definitely looking forward to that UX

blks 7mo ago

Now huge amount of investment pays for training. This investment expects some returns, to be able to both turn profit and continue the training, rates must be much, much higher.