8 comments

  • Alex_toani34 minutes ago
    I've been read reports which suggesting that the major AI model companies aren't particularly profitable. The ones actually making money are those selling servers and providing power infrastructure. The bulk of these companies' revenue flows straight to those costs, leaving slim profit margins. That's to say nothing of services like Claude and ChatGPT with their subscription tiers — unless, of course, they happen to land a customer who pays $200 a month and barely touches the product.
  • photonair12 hours ago
    Does this mean Claude Code $200 plan is really costing them more to run it especially for power users or they are just ripping off people with API usage? If they are just subsidizing for the $200 plan, is it just a land grab for now? and then raise prices later?
    • Lionga11 hours ago
      Clearly land grab, they reported billions of losses every quater. To be break even it needs to cost about 1000$ month, but then they would lose at lot of customers. Problem is they have no moat and will just burn billions of VC money to lose customers later.
      • photonair10 hours ago
        If I don't need something powerful like GPT 5.5 or Claude, I could just use Deepseek, Qwen or the cheaper chinese models. I think everyone is getting smart about routing their workload to models that are cheap but good enough to fulfill the request/task and then reserving the pricier like Claude for tasks needing higher intelligence.
        • Hiteshjain1189 hours ago
          Yup, I have been testing Qwen and Kimi lately. Seeing comparable accuracy of Qwen-Instruct (not thinking) to closed source models. Here&#x27;s a blog we published on that <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.coralbricks.ai&#x2F;blog&#x2F;alphacumen-finance-benchmarks" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.coralbricks.ai&#x2F;blog&#x2F;alphacumen-finance-benchmark...</a>
        • mrkn18 hours ago
          A lot of my queries are summarize&#x2F;explain&#x2F;fact check, and these are covered 100% on my CPU locally [0], reducing frontier model reliance<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=48301003">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=48301003</a>
  • kpratik1612 hours ago
    Interesting analysis that most token cost is due to re-reading the same context.
  • sibidharan15 hours ago
    You mean if I use 2x $200 Max fully every week, I actually consume ~$5000 worth of API usage ?? Wow!!!
    • Hiteshjain11815 hours ago
      My guess is you can push to $5k&#x2F;month token usage with just a single Max subscription.<p>During my 30 days analysis window, I consumed $3371 of token and didn&#x27;t hit rate limits even once.<p>I plan to keep pushing my token usage higher until I hit rate limits at least 5-10 times in a month.
      • sibidharan14 hours ago
        I hit rate-limit every other day... 5 hour... Week... I consume my 20x weekly in 3 days! So having 2x 20x!<p>If I could harness $10000 worth of API usage... this is the best time, no idea how long we will get this subsidy! I wont pay $10000 out of my pockets to do the same work!
        • Hiteshjain11810 hours ago
          I&#x27;m curious what your token&#x2F;$ usage looks like, if you&#x27;d be willing to share :)
      • nbbaier12 hours ago
        It&#x27;s hard for me to figure out what to use all those tokens for
  • divyvasal16 hours ago
    A 17x subsidy is crazy. It really highlights the hidden cost of context window re-evaluation in agent loops.
  • dnnddidiej13 hours ago
    Subsidy? Sound more like raw API is just expensive.
    • l2s08 hours ago
      I agree with this, until we have actual info about how much is the API going to cost for the big lab, I wouldn&#x27;t call it subsidy
  • Hiteshjain11816 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • kevinsmith5110 hours ago
    [flagged]