This is a cool way of approaching AI models. I'm a big fan of local LLMs, local specific models like this should be even more powerful.

> Every model is free up to 100k monthly active devices. No tokens, no logins.

I dunno about the business model though. Cloud LLM billing makes sense: you're getting another computer to do work with each request, and using their compute via their gateway that they bill you.

These local models are like old school software. They're producing the weights, and then giving them to people. If I'm happy with the weights you've given me, and I'm not using your compute for inference and not wanting or needing any updates off you, why should you continue getting money off me and my customers?

The whole "but we need to keep it updated for your security" doesn't really work as well for software designed to run fully offline like these local models are.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid, but I guess I feel a personal sadness that it's less obvious how to successfully monetise such a sincerely useful and beneficial approach towards AI models.

As far as I can see there is no clear pricing once you go beyond the free tier - it's contact sales.

This is actually a classic enterprise software approach - as there are no fixed per unit production costs to cover, the pricing is very elastic.

ie each license is probably a negotiation - if you see your app for a one off fee then they want a one-off cut - if you sell a subscription they may want a cut of that instead.

Obviously the risk is if you bake it in and your app becomes successful they may want a larger cut than you can afford, but if they don't negotiate in good faith they won't last very long.

> If I'm happy with the weights you've given me, and I'm not using your compute for inference and not wanting or needing any updates off you, why should you continue getting money off me and my customers?

I definitely understand the appeal of the desire to “buy it once”, but I think there are a few issues:

- almost no software is static. Look at a package like python Requests and even though it does the simplest thing and has barely changed from a user perspective, it gets updated all the time. This is true for most software. This is doubly true for something like local AI models where both the software and the hardware are changing constantly. Subscriptions motivate sellers to keep their software up to date.

- If I’m an app developer, the idea that I can try something out for $X/month is very appealing versus making an upfront investment of (let’s say) $X*20. This is doubly true for something like local models where I will almost certainly want something new when the models improve.

- To add to the first point, I work at a startup. No one asks questions when I want $20/month licenses. But let’s say I want something that’s gonna be in the 5 figure range annually. If I go to my CFO and ask for $50k upfront and then we implement something and the project fails, I look like an idiot. If I ask for $2000/mo budget for something and then we try it for two months and it fails, no one cares. Subscriptions are just safer in this sense.

How is it not obvious and fair that they are asking you to pay them when you see success (defined as >100K MAU)? How more aligned can you and them be besides this?

How would a model where you pay per each model/weight update feel like? More similar to traditional software, where you'd get the current version, maybe even free/rebated version upgrade to the next, but then have to do another purchase to get the latest version? Or something similar to that?

Feels like it'd be more aligned with how the business and users would produce and use it, it'd be something like: "We've done a bunch of research and output, here is the thing, you can buy it, and we'll work on the next, then you can pay again for the next if you'd like".

> If I'm happy with the weights you've given me, and I'm not using your compute for inference and not wanting or needing any updates off you, why should you continue getting money off me and my customers?

Because they own the IP and they get to decide the terms of how it’s licensed.

This is like a company taking open source software, saying they like the code the community has given them, and asking why they should continue having to respect the terms of the license after downloading the code. The availability of the software (or models) does not equal a free license to use as you please.

A license allowing 100K devices for free is very generous. The businesses selling more than 100K units of anything will be significant operations. It’s fair that they’re asked to contribute financially.

> why should you continue getting money off me and my customers?

Welcome to the concept of fair market value. Less snarkily you're conflating the concepts of price and cost; theyre not the same thing and theyre not the same for you or the seller.