logoalt Hacker News

muyuutoday at 1:33 AM2 repliesview on HN

It's one thing to pay $5 or $20 per month, which although it's a substantial difference, people pay that much for the convenience of having stuff ready and available - and it's a completely different thing to pay $200 per month. People don't pay that much for occasional usage and many/most people will organise themselves to use all or most of their weekly allowance when the expense is in that ballpark.

If Anthropic miscalculated the amount of tokens, or simply pushed too hard to capture market share, that is a costly mistake because people in this market are very sensitive to price hikes.

They have to be honest about what they can offer for $200. Sure, people don't max their subscriptions but when they're large they make the best of it, or they will likely cancel it. The typical subscription works well below capacity because it's cheap enough that the optionality may be worth it. $200 is not the typical subscription.


Replies

rovr138today at 1:36 AM

>They have to be honest about what they can offer for $200

Their expectation must have been a human using the service at a human capacity.

This is different from an automated agent orchestrating a ton of different agents at the same time doing a lot of things.

There is a difference.

show 3 replies
jen729wtoday at 2:13 AM

> They have to be honest about what they can offer for $200.

Isn't that exactly what they just did?