I just fundamentally am resistant to calling the "little people" the assholes.

Look, in my view, Anthropic made a mistake. And that's okay, we all do.

But I'm not going to let a multi-billion dollar company off the hook because some nobodies called them out on their bluff. No, Anthropic made the mistake, and now they're fixing it.

Ultimately, this came out of greed - but not the greed of the little people. Anthropic chose aggressive pricing because, like all somewhat large corporations, they usually opt for cheating instead of winning by value. What I mean is, Anthropic didn't strive for The Best product, they instead used their capital as collateral to sell a service at loss to squeeze competitors, particularly small, non-incumbent ones.

And, that's fine, it's a legitimate business strategy. Walmart does it, Amazon does it, whatever. But if that backfires, I don't care and I won't extend sympathy. Such a strategy is inherently risky. They gambled, people called their bluff, and now they're folding.

i get it, fuck the "man" and so forth.

I’m not suggesting you be sympathetic to anthropic. I’m suggesting sympathy for people who were using it legitimately, such as myself and others in areas where $200/mo is an extraordinary commitment, and we're not blind but appreciative to their subsidizing the cost.

the core of my position is, was it necessary for people to use it wastefully because they could? what was gained from that activity? sticking it to that greedy corporation? did it outweigh what was lost to the other 95%+ of users?

i don't think we're debating from compatible viewpoints. i maintain it's not wrong, just abusive. you maintain it's not wrong, it is [was] allowed. so be it.

the party's over anyways. the result is an acceleration on the path of normalizing the true cost of usage and it's clear that will unfortunately, or maybe justifiably in your eyes, exclude a lot of people who can't afford it. cheers man.