4 ms·

> Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost I am guessing this is not targeting those of us on the heavily subsidized $200/mo plans. Sure, these plans may be tempora

> Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost I am guessing this is not targeting those of us on the heavily subsidized $200/mo plans. Sure, these plans may be temporary, but none of us really know how temporary they are. Until then, 1/3rd of the published API pricing is not very appealing.

killingtime74 2mo ago
All enterprises users (people using them for work and not side projects) can't get the subsidized plans. I would say subsidized plans are a minority of usage?
- nickthegreek 2mo ago
  The subsidized userbase is large enough that cheema is right to call this out this distinction for other readers.
- rodrodrod 2mo ago
  People _can_ get subsidized plans for work: we use Claude Teams, $100/mo premium seat, which caps at 150 seats. Not enterprise tier, but fine for SMBs.
  - lnrd 2mo ago
    As long as you are fine with everything your team puts into Claude being retained by Anthropic. Afaik only enterprise API plans provide non data retention policies.
- monk_grilla 2mo ago
  I imagine that most small to medium sized businesses are on either individual plans or Teams plans. The vast majority of firms do not need more than 150 seats, and API rates are not sustainable for most.
  - byzantinegene 2mo ago
    if this is true, the frontier labs are not able to justify their trillion dollar valuations, they are barely making anything on subsidized plans.
    - bensyverson 2mo ago
      Hey, are you trying to imply that the Emperor has no clothes or something? /s
    - nl 2mo ago
      You can bet that most people on those plans do not tokenmax.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - lelanthran 2mo ago
        I'll bet the other way: the plan is not cost effective unless you are coding, and even the most junior developer, so green they almost need mowing, are going to throw the agents into a loop. I can not imagine some shelling out $200/month and then using that product lightly.
        nl 2mo ago
        > I can not imagine some shelling out $200/month and then using that product lightly. The people paying for the plan are not the same people using it. Of 6 people I have data on the $200/plan only 2 regularly use more than $400 value. > I'll bet the other way: the plan is not cost effective unless you are coding The person I've personally seen use the most tokens isn't a coder. They do the "second brain" thing and wow it uses a lot of tokens. They believe in the value, and TBH I've seen them do some pretty interesting and impressive things with it. > the most junior developer, so green they almost need mowing, are going to throw the agents into a loop I think this is also true. But loops actually hit the cache a lot and most people who are calculating the value they are getting from a subscription aren't taking this into account. SemiAnalysis published a snippet of their analysis, and they believe their tokens are an effective price of $0.99/million, rather than $20/million the naive pricing calculation would give you.
stilesja 2mo ago
I burned though my weekly fable usage last night on the $200 plan. I had $200 in promotional usage credits and was in the middle of executing a moderate sized coding plan. Ran on usage credits for about 1h 15m and burned $120 in usage credits. I was astounded to see how fast the $ usage added up. One problem was that I was using sub-agent execution so multiple agents were running simultaneously and I realized at the end that claude had "Forgotten" my directive to use cheaper models as appropriate for sub-agent tasks so I was running multiple instances of Fable at once. Still hard to imagine paying per token. $200 a month is high, $200 per night is crazy.
- good8675309 2mo ago
  I stopped using sub agents after they caused me to hit my limit to quickly. Had to create a separate account and pay for another max plan to unblock myself temporarily
  - sunaookami 2mo ago
    Yeah sub-agents are a scam and the results are always worse since you lose all context, caching, etc.
- jambalaya8 2mo ago
  I am too young (most of us on here are) to have lived through the paying for time on time-share machines in the 60s/70s, but this is giving me creepy memories of paying for sprintnet/telenet and tymnet... And I guess aol, compuserv, delphi. Are we really doing this computing model again?
  - DougN7 2mo ago
    That is really a great insight!
  - Foobar8568 2mo ago
    If I remember well, visual studio/ msdn used to be like 5k-10k per year... Basically any IT tool cost a shit load of money. I have in mind 50k-100k ish for 3d studio max or was it softimage? (Well seems softimage https://www.awn.com/animationworld/siggraph-news-announcing-next-generation https://www.awn.com/animationworld/siggraph-news-announcing-... ). So... Basically we are back to this era.
byzantinegene 2mo ago
I believe they will last until they IPO, and not long after that. $200/mo plans are not good for their P&L when their users using $10000 worth api credits. That's -98% margin loss per user.
- suby 2mo ago
  People point to the equivalent API costs to show that they are getting a great deal on the subscription, 10,000 dollars worth of tokens for 200 dollars. I do wonder if it's the other way around though - are the API users simply getting ripped off? I have seen Dario say in multiple interviews that they are profitable on inference, which maybe he was only meaning to refer to API usage, but that's not the impression I got. It's not a 98% margin loss if your users are unwilling to pay 50 times the cost that they were previously paying, and if they have other options like open source providers. The calculus isn't so simple because some portion of users would switch to API, and so it's about how many would continue using the service rather than leaving for a competitor. I'm aware they need to recoup the enormous cost of training and data centers, but on a purely inference cost level I'm not convinced that the 200 dollar plans are unprofitable.
  - orsorna 2mo ago
    I figured the subsidization is to entice people to give training data. Are your thought patterns worth 9800 dollars a month? What's the RoR on analyzing those thought patterns?
  - victorbjorklund 2mo ago
    Yea, it’s like pointing at the cost of renting all individual movies and TV-series at Netflix and concluding that Netflix subsidizes the subscription with tens of thousands of dollars.
  - nl 2mo ago
    > I'm not convinced that the 200 dollar plans are unprofitable. Especially considering not everyone is tokenmaxxing, and in most parts of the world people take leave and companies do not cut their subscriptions. I suspect they are priced to have a lifetime average price/token amount that is roughly break-even, or maybe a slight loss leader. > have seen Dario say in multiple interviews that they are profitable on inference, which maybe he was only meaning to refer to API usage, but that's not the impression I got. I think he does mean API usage. Don't forget they can (and do) adjust the number of tokens you get on each plan at any time to adjust their margins on those. That means he knows that is controllable, and it only the underlaying inference that defines the succes or otherwise of the company.
neonstatic 2mo ago
> Sure, these plans may be temporary, but none of us really know how temporary they are. Anthropic emailed me today: Fable 5 moved to usage credits on July 20. It is still available to you, but it requires pay-as-you-go usage credits and is not included in your subscription rate limits.
- MertsA 2mo ago
  That's going to be on the $20 plan. IIRC the $100 and $200 plans keep the 50% fable usage.
  - dd8601fn 2mo ago
    We got emails and UI messages informing us that Fable is now a standard part of Max plans (both sizes). The half usage limit still applies.
  - agar 2mo ago
    I'm on Teams and Fable is now usage credit only.
    - nl 2mo ago
      You are on a Pro plans and standard seats on Team plans: Fable 5 isn't included in your plan's usage limits. For Premium seats it is. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15424964-claude-fable-5-on-your-plan https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15424964-claude-fable...
hahahaa 2mo ago
Unless you want to not get rate limited (or banned depending on how close you are sailing to the claw wind)

killingtime74 2mo ago

All enterprises users (people using them for work and not side projects) can't get the subsidized plans. I would say subsidized plans are a minority of usage?

nickthegreek 2mo ago
The subsidized userbase is large enough that cheema is right to call this out this distinction for other readers.
rodrodrod 2mo ago
People _can_ get subsidized plans for work: we use Claude Teams, $100/mo premium seat, which caps at 150 seats. Not enterprise tier, but fine for SMBs.
- lnrd 2mo ago
  As long as you are fine with everything your team puts into Claude being retained by Anthropic. Afaik only enterprise API plans provide non data retention policies.
monk_grilla 2mo ago
I imagine that most small to medium sized businesses are on either individual plans or Teams plans. The vast majority of firms do not need more than 150 seats, and API rates are not sustainable for most.
- byzantinegene 2mo ago
  if this is true, the frontier labs are not able to justify their trillion dollar valuations, they are barely making anything on subsidized plans.
  - bensyverson 2mo ago
    Hey, are you trying to imply that the Emperor has no clothes or something? /s
  - nl 2mo ago
    You can bet that most people on those plans do not tokenmax.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - lelanthran 2mo ago
      I'll bet the other way: the plan is not cost effective unless you are coding, and even the most junior developer, so green they almost need mowing, are going to throw the agents into a loop. I can not imagine some shelling out $200/month and then using that product lightly.
      - nl 2mo ago
        > I can not imagine some shelling out $200/month and then using that product lightly. The people paying for the plan are not the same people using it. Of 6 people I have data on the $200/plan only 2 regularly use more than $400 value. > I'll bet the other way: the plan is not cost effective unless you are coding The person I've personally seen use the most tokens isn't a coder. They do the "second brain" thing and wow it uses a lot of tokens. They believe in the value, and TBH I've seen them do some pretty interesting and impressive things with it. > the most junior developer, so green they almost need mowing, are going to throw the agents into a loop I think this is also true. But loops actually hit the cache a lot and most people who are calculating the value they are getting from a subscription aren't taking this into account. SemiAnalysis published a snippet of their analysis, and they believe their tokens are an effective price of $0.99/million, rather than $20/million the naive pricing calculation would give you.

stilesja 2mo ago

I burned though my weekly fable usage last night on the $200 plan. I had $200 in promotional usage credits and was in the middle of executing a moderate sized coding plan. Ran on usage credits for about 1h 15m and burned $120 in usage credits. I was astounded to see how fast the $ usage added up. One problem was that I was using sub-agent execution so multiple agents were running simultaneously and I realized at the end that claude had "Forgotten" my directive to use cheaper models as appropriate for sub-agent tasks so I was running multiple instances of Fable at once. Still hard to imagine paying per token. $200 a month is high, $200 per night is crazy.

good8675309 2mo ago
I stopped using sub agents after they caused me to hit my limit to quickly. Had to create a separate account and pay for another max plan to unblock myself temporarily
- sunaookami 2mo ago
  Yeah sub-agents are a scam and the results are always worse since you lose all context, caching, etc.
jambalaya8 2mo ago
I am too young (most of us on here are) to have lived through the paying for time on time-share machines in the 60s/70s, but this is giving me creepy memories of paying for sprintnet/telenet and tymnet... And I guess aol, compuserv, delphi. Are we really doing this computing model again?
- DougN7 2mo ago
  That is really a great insight!
- Foobar8568 2mo ago
  If I remember well, visual studio/ msdn used to be like 5k-10k per year... Basically any IT tool cost a shit load of money. I have in mind 50k-100k ish for 3d studio max or was it softimage? (Well seems softimage https://www.awn.com/animationworld/siggraph-news-announcing-next-generation https://www.awn.com/animationworld/siggraph-news-announcing-... ). So... Basically we are back to this era.

byzantinegene 2mo ago

I believe they will last until they IPO, and not long after that. $200/mo plans are not good for their P&L when their users using $10000 worth api credits. That's -98% margin loss per user.

suby 2mo ago
People point to the equivalent API costs to show that they are getting a great deal on the subscription, 10,000 dollars worth of tokens for 200 dollars. I do wonder if it's the other way around though - are the API users simply getting ripped off? I have seen Dario say in multiple interviews that they are profitable on inference, which maybe he was only meaning to refer to API usage, but that's not the impression I got. It's not a 98% margin loss if your users are unwilling to pay 50 times the cost that they were previously paying, and if they have other options like open source providers. The calculus isn't so simple because some portion of users would switch to API, and so it's about how many would continue using the service rather than leaving for a competitor. I'm aware they need to recoup the enormous cost of training and data centers, but on a purely inference cost level I'm not convinced that the 200 dollar plans are unprofitable.
- orsorna 2mo ago
  I figured the subsidization is to entice people to give training data. Are your thought patterns worth 9800 dollars a month? What's the RoR on analyzing those thought patterns?
- victorbjorklund 2mo ago
  Yea, it’s like pointing at the cost of renting all individual movies and TV-series at Netflix and concluding that Netflix subsidizes the subscription with tens of thousands of dollars.
- nl 2mo ago
  > I'm not convinced that the 200 dollar plans are unprofitable. Especially considering not everyone is tokenmaxxing, and in most parts of the world people take leave and companies do not cut their subscriptions. I suspect they are priced to have a lifetime average price/token amount that is roughly break-even, or maybe a slight loss leader. > have seen Dario say in multiple interviews that they are profitable on inference, which maybe he was only meaning to refer to API usage, but that's not the impression I got. I think he does mean API usage. Don't forget they can (and do) adjust the number of tokens you get on each plan at any time to adjust their margins on those. That means he knows that is controllable, and it only the underlaying inference that defines the succes or otherwise of the company.

neonstatic 2mo ago

> Sure, these plans may be temporary, but none of us really know how temporary they are. Anthropic emailed me today: Fable 5 moved to usage credits on July 20. It is still available to you, but it requires pay-as-you-go usage credits and is not included in your subscription rate limits.

MertsA 2mo ago
That's going to be on the $20 plan. IIRC the $100 and $200 plans keep the 50% fable usage.
- dd8601fn 2mo ago
  We got emails and UI messages informing us that Fable is now a standard part of Max plans (both sizes). The half usage limit still applies.
- agar 2mo ago
  I'm on Teams and Fable is now usage credit only.
  - nl 2mo ago
    You are on a Pro plans and standard seats on Team plans: Fable 5 isn't included in your plan's usage limits. For Premium seats it is. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15424964-claude-fable-5-on-your-plan https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15424964-claude-fable...

hahahaa 2mo ago

Unless you want to not get rate limited (or banned depending on how close you are sailing to the claw wind)