Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They lose money at $200/month in most cases. Again, the old rules still apply. You are the product.


I'm confident "in most cases" is not correct there. If they lose money on the $200/month plan it's only with a tiny portion of users.


I've started looking into this. I'm unsure how exactly to interpret the "cost" data that can be added to statusline, but I'm on the Pro plan and have noticed that it's reporting ~$100 cost across projects I've used it on. For a week, which means I'm getting ~$200 worth for $20 in a month. That's immense value even if it's fairly off, and unless there are people paying for a subscription and using for a couple days in a month... don't want to contemplate it too much TBH given that I'm benefiting so much.


>They lose money at $200/month in most cases.

Source? Every time I see claims on profitability it's always hand wavy justifications.


There’s a lot of articles about it. It costs them $500+ for heavy users. They do this to capture market share and also to train their agent loops with human reinforcement learning.

https://ezzekielnjuguna.medium.com/why-anthropic-is-practica...


>There’s a lot of articles about it. ....

>https://ezzekielnjuguna.medium.com/why-anthropic-is-practica...

You chose a bad one. It just asserts the 95% figure without evidence and then uses it as the premise for the rest of the article. That just confirms what I said earlier about how "Every time I see claims on profitability it's always hand wavy justifications.". Moreover the article reeks of LLM-isms.


'Hand wavy' is one of my LLMs favourite terms.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: