Seems like everybody an their mothers are using max plans these days. I wouldn't be surprised if LTV of each customer was big enough to justify spending.

▲ wg0 4 days ago | parent [-]

Assuming there are 10 million developers and everyone is at $200 max plan, that would be $2 billion/month or $24 billion/year maximum.

Note - this is just the revenue not the profit. No salaries, no compute paid for. Just plain revenue. Profit would be way less.

But even that - if we take it to $24 billion/year and we take a 10x multiple, the company is barely valued at $240 billon dollar, lets be generous and make it double at $480 billion and then round it up to $500 billion for a nice round number.

Far far from the $800 billion valuation Anthropic is looking at.

Only a matter of time.

EDIT: Fixed math

▲ billziss 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

While I agree with you that AI companies are overvalued, I think 10 million developers at $200 per month makes 2 billion.

    >>> f"{10_000_000 * 200:_}"
    '2_000_000_000'

	▲	wg0 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for pointing out. I updated the comment.

▲ steveklabnik 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Companies are spending far more than $200/month/developer. The $200 Max plan is a great value but you hit limits far too soon, and it also doesn't cover any of the other styles of integrations and tools that you can build and use to help your developers, like code review suggestions, which at the very least would come from additional Max plans, and not from the individual developers' plans.

▲ solenoid0937 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Pro and Max plans are a tiny fraction of their revenue. Many businesses are spending thousands of dollars per head per month.

▲

wg0 4 days ago | parent [-]

Really? Not challenging you, genuinely asking for more details.

If that is true, I think AI is counterproductive from the bean counter's standpoint.

▲

solenoid0937 4 days ago | parent [-]

Not counterproductive because people aren't just sitting back in the rest of the time while AI does work. They do more work. $3k per head on Claude is nothing if your devs get 2x more work done.

	▲	wg0 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Do they review the code? Because in my experience using Claude Opus 4.6 generates code that would be buggy and the tests would be written agains that buggy code with wrong assumptions that certainly would pass with flying colors. It is only when you look closed you get to know what the hell has happened!