[yakattak]

They’re asking for $100+/mo for the plans that are actually usable at scale. If I’m paying that much I have very high expectations.

There’s also the fact that they’re known for dogfooding heavily, I imagine that contributes to it a lot.

[stingraycharles]

> They’re asking for $100+/mo for the plans that are actually usable at scale. If I’m paying that much I have very high expectations.

If you think $100 is that much and get very high expectations from it, you're not the target customer. You're a loss leader to Anthropic, and the fact that you don't see that / still have high expectations means your expectations are unrealistic.

[dijit]

$100/m for SaaS is very steep.

For an entire productivity suite including mail, meetings and terabytes of backed up redundant storage with nearly no bandwidth limitations it's like $35/m for even the most expensive option.

[tao_oat]

Those products have very low COGS in comparison to this.

[bredren]

Claude Code and Codex are not SaaS products in the traditional sense.

[stingraycharles]

Comparing state of the art LLMs with Office365 / Gsuite is like comparing renting a datacenter vs an airbnb. Entirely different things.

Compare it to hosting models locally, that would be more apt. Or renting GPUs from cloud vendors.

[dijit]

It’s a SaaS, and the most expensive SaaS available.

If you’re saying an LLM provides more value than the office productivity suites , mail platforms and meeting platforms which run essentially the planet: then I am afraid, you have drunk the kool-aid.

If you’re evaluating software licenses you have to weigh the price to value, there can be value to these LLMs but its not 3x the productivity of Mail+Spreadsheets+Live Meetings+presentations+wordprocessing+filesharing.

Its just not.

[stingraycharles]

If you really think the value add by LLMs is comparable to email and calendar, I don’t understand why you don’t understand my point that you’re not the customer Anthropic cares about.

[dijit]

Your point is stupid.

The cost of offering a service and the cost of buying a service are correlated but not the customers problem.

If you are the most expensive SaaS on a docket sheet and you’re also the least reliable you had better be delivering some serious value in the times you’re up otherwise customers won’t depend on you and you’ll be the first one out.

Nobody wants to pay premium prices for things they can’t depend on. If you cant understand that then you need to stop offloading critical thinking to your AI tools because your mind needs the exercise.

[baq]

you could arguably ditch the productivity suite and a few other 'essential' subscriptions to make room for this one, except the price point will get enshittified to hell in the coming months and years.

[dgb23]

I think the bigger point is that the price tag is simply not competitive, especially given all of the issues, downsides and dangers.

Whether Anthropic makes money from the $100 subscriptions or not, is their problem.

[tristanj]

Those subscription plans are a loss leader. Anthropic would rather have you pay per-token for their API, where they actually make money. By cutting subscription limits, they push people towards using their API. And it's working, there are people spending thousands per month on their API.

[forrestthewoods]

> They’re asking for $100+/mo for the plans that are actually usable at scale. If I’m paying that much I have very high expectations.

They’re losing money on you at that price point.

Or more precisely you’re paying for it by giving them training data.

[omega3]

I'm not convinced, Kimi 2.5, GLM 5.1, Minimax M2.7 are all fraction of the price and still make money on inference.

[baq]

they can adjust prices or you can adjust your expectations.

...and let's be realistic, it'll be both.