Hacker News

points by fxwin 1 day ago | 0 comments

> The subscription prices can not be financially sustainable. There is no way that is remotely close to the actual cost of running.

Welcome to... any subscription system ever? If every person with a gym subscription actually went there say three times a week, or every person living in a dorm paying flat rate for electricity started mining bitcoin 24/7, these systems would collapse. That doesn't mean it's not sustainable, it just is how subscription pricing works, by having some people use its offers a ton and others barely at all

[–] Tanjreeve 1 day ago

This metaphor gets repeated a lot for some reason but using a gym subscription has an upper bound. If one subscription could be using 10000 different machines at the same time their model would be entirely different.

[–] fxwin 19 hours ago

CC has an upper bound too, and one that is much more reasonably reached in regular usage (as opposed to gym visits)

[–] Tanjreeve 18 hours ago

Absolutely. And those limits + changes to them piss off a lot of users. There's a rock of they need to show adoption + usage while having to put limits on everything that pisses off users.

And there's a hard place that everyone freaks out at API prices and on-demand Opex models outside of a niche (I use API for personal research for quite focused queries and slightly more reassurance on being the customer and not the product) but this is very competitive + not sticky.

[–] matkoniecz 1 day ago

Claude also has higher bound. Once it proposed running 16 concurrent subagents and it went through 5h limit (and substantial part of weekly) in minutes.

Overall it would go through weekly usage within 40 minutes, if not for 5h session limit.

Running on 10000 computers will just hit all the limits at once.