| ▲ | rlpb 12 hours ago |
| > It's all circumstantial but everything points towards "desperately trying to cut costs". I have been wondering if it's more geared at reducing resource usage, given that at the moment there's a known constraint on AI datacenter expansion capability. Perhaps they are struggling to meet demand? |
|
| ▲ | stingraycharles 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s more that Anthropic knows that the models themselves are non-sticky, and the real moat is in the ecosystem around it. It only makes sense for them to get users to use their ecosystem, rather than other tools. |
| |
| ▲ | oorza 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | See: Claude Cowork trying to establish an entire new group of people in their ecosystem. |
|
|
| ▲ | sshine 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Perhaps Anthropic is struggling to meet demand? Yes, definitely, they’re gracefully failing to meet demand. They could also deny new customers, but it would probably be bad for business. |
| |
| ▲ | leesalminen 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I once decided to deny new customers in order to be able to service current demand at the quality we wanted. It backfired and made people want our product even more. Our phones were blowing up. That approach can have unintended consequences! | | |
| ▲ | sunnybeetroot 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You unintentionally used a common sales tactic; by decreasing supply you increase demand. | |
| ▲ | ayewo an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Another knob you could have turned is: raise prices. Did you try this? |
| |
| ▲ | 59nadir 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bad for business and probably unwise for the type of product people will pop their head in to check on, then stop paying and return much later to see whether it's still not much more than a parlor trick for them. |
|
|
| ▲ | MuffinFlavored 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I wish they would just rip the bandaid to stop everybody's entitled whining. "We're sorry, what we were able to give you for $100/mo before now needs to be $200/mo (or more). We miscalculated/we were too generous/gave too much away for too little. It's a new technology, we are seeing a ton of demand, we are trying to run a business, hope you understand. If you don't want it, don't pay for it." |
| |
| ▲ | oorza 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are we at the point where there are external constraints that cash can't solve? | | |
| ▲ | jazzyjackson an hour ago | parent [-] | | can't tell if you're being facetious but yes, there's not enough cash in the world to double energy/silicon fab capacity in a year. Infrastructure takes time, hardware is hard, and you have to be willing to bet that the demand will be there 5 years from now to make an investment today. | | |
| ▲ | killingtime74 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Until one has the entire supply of world GPU production, cash can solve it by out bidding others |
|
| |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Just put everyone on pay per use with the API and rip the band aid off. | |
| ▲ | schmookeeg 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is my take too, although I'm not prepared for a max400 reality to replace the max200, but... I hate all of the whingeing. Piggies at the buffet line seem to be the loudest on this subject. | |
| ▲ | 73738488484 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is one thing to pay 100 a month to make calendar apps for your linkedin and birds on bicycles to get invited to talks, paying 200 HOWEVER | | |
| ▲ | sunnybeetroot 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If we didn’t have the birds on bicycles, how would we know the models are getting better? |
|
|
