harry19023 7 hours ago

Agreed. The level of entitlement around how we all deserve to use a product in a category that didn't even exist 12 months ago with increasing performance at the same price forever is insane.

▲

wqaatwt 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Consumers want to pay as little as possible and companies want to charge them as much as they possibly can. That’s how markets work I don’t understand what does “entitlement” have to do with anything. If loud consumers somehow manage to coerce companies into lowering prices/offering better products that’s a massive win for almost everyone (of course usually its just noise that doesn’t change anything, however it did work on a few occasions).

	▲	harry19023 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The the article was talking about how Anthropic costs too much and how there are cheaper options available then yes I would agree with you. But this article has a conspiratorial and moral crusade tone which is what I'm responding to. The article says "In my opinion (which may be in the minority), it’s unethical to: lock in your customers to a closed system for maximum market gain put down the competition when they pose a risk to your product make hypocritical claims on how your product increases quality when your own software sucks artificially restrict one’s own product as a fear-mongering marketing stunt test dynamic pricing on your users to see how much more they’ll pay for less change the terms of your product after the sale without notifying your user base" anthropic is not just a business operating in a market, they are "unethical" and "fear-mongering" and "hypocritical".

▲

andrewmutz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I also think that the people who are complaining loudest about Anthropics pricing and changes are the customers Anthropic is least interested in retaining.

From my experience people who complain loudly about the price tend to be people who are either (1) working primarily on hobby projects so are unwilling to pay much for Claude Code or (2) using astronomical amount of tokens through elaborately orchestrated multi-agent setups that only make sense when someone else is paying the bill.

	▲	wqaatwt 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Short term yes. But there is a reason why IDEs, game engine and other development tools have very high cheap or free versions for this market segment. Since these users end up having a huge influence on what companies they work at / end up working at spend their money on. Of course LLMs are a commodity at this point but if someone is using Codex, Pi etc. at home it becomes more likely they won’t be picking Claude Code at their day job either.

▲

cmrdporcupine 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

C'mon, get real. The monthly subscription costs on these services are several multiples what software engineers have formerly paid for development tools.

I have worked in shops that made it difficult for me just to get a paid for RustRover or CLion license, and had to out of pocket it. The monthly sub for Claude or Codex is equivalent to the total license cost for that.

It's not entitled to expect your $200/month tooling expense to have a level of reliability and consistency.

If your employer is paying for it, fine. I am my own employer. I don't fancy becoming dependent on tooling that costs me as much as my family's whole monthly mobile plan and then having it degrade in unpredictable ways or rug pull me on quota. Or have geo-political drama as part of its release cycle.

	▲	jefftk 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Why compare to what historical tooling (which is very different in terms of how it's built and what it does) instead of to value over replacement?
	▲	harry19023 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If you need stability for your business you can pay API prices, just like business plans for internet are also more expensive.