I wanted to say something dismissive. It feels like a lot of doublespeak, which I think undermines trust in them.
But I do understand that it's a little hard to characterize the amount of compute they're selling while obfuscating the business model enough that it still works. Demand, costs, supply, capabilities, competition change wildly week to week.
Selling a standardized "token" via the API with gas-like pricing works a lot better for transparency. But I think there's a world where the ambiguous subscription pricing is net beneficial for users and providers. Allowing some degree of price discrimination should benefit everyone in aggregate, assuming there's real competition and not yet another duopoly..
Anthropic made critical decisions regarding compute and demand predictions which puts OpenAI in a much more healthy place. OpenAI have been reducing prices multiple times and increasing rate limits while also being generous with resets.
Somehow enterprise, Anthropic is still ahead and I genuinely can't tell how or why? The models aren't that great (except Fable but has data retention issues). The prices are not that great. Claude Code is not as good as Codex. What gives?
That bsky post is mirroring the x.com/ClaudeDevs account.
The mirror is missing the next post: "Compared to today, this works out to a 17% reduction in weekly limits on Claude Code"
Yeah, sadly xcancel.com is down.
I’m confused, how does that work?
I wanted to say something dismissive. It feels like a lot of doublespeak, which I think undermines trust in them.
But I do understand that it's a little hard to characterize the amount of compute they're selling while obfuscating the business model enough that it still works. Demand, costs, supply, capabilities, competition change wildly week to week.
Selling a standardized "token" via the API with gas-like pricing works a lot better for transparency. But I think there's a world where the ambiguous subscription pricing is net beneficial for users and providers. Allowing some degree of price discrimination should benefit everyone in aggregate, assuming there's real competition and not yet another duopoly..
Apparently they were already offering 50% extra limits.
150% -> 125%
25÷150 = .1667
That's how they arrived at 17%.
https://x.com/ClaudeDevs/status/2093742321473065266
IIUC it's been on a "temporary" raise, which is higher than the one they're now "making permanent".
maybe he means in respect to how many reach the limit?
No one cares, move to open weights. cba to keep up with how idiots keep changing their minds and their plans.
I do. I have a series of Claude 20x MAX accounts that cost me $800 per month in total. I use about $12K in tokens at API rates based on napkin math.
The title is straightforward lie. Changing +50% to +25% gives -17% in result.
What does this mean for Fable limits exclusively?
Anthropic made critical decisions regarding compute and demand predictions which puts OpenAI in a much more healthy place. OpenAI have been reducing prices multiple times and increasing rate limits while also being generous with resets.
Somehow enterprise, Anthropic is still ahead and I genuinely can't tell how or why? The models aren't that great (except Fable but has data retention issues). The prices are not that great. Claude Code is not as good as Codex. What gives?