Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lrae 17 days ago
> Just as Anthropic isn’t paying AWS SES $10,000,000 to send 1 email update

How much do you think emails cost? That number is just so far off?

But besides that, running SES is also quite a bit cheaper than SOTA ai models with high demand (and comparatively) no competition. And quite a bit more pressure to make money (soon).
1 comments
tomjakubowski 17 days ago
I think it was a figurative example. For what it's worth, $10,000,000 buys you 100 billion (1e11) outbound emails on SES at the sticker price ($0.10/1000 emails). One source puts the number of emails sent worldwide in 2024 at 132 trillion (1.32e14).

https://aws.amazon.com/ses/pricing/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/456500/daily-number-of-e...

link
no-name-here 17 days ago
But if their “figurative example” was the opposite of reality, then we should similarly assume their other claims were the opposite of true as well?
link
tomjakubowski 11 days ago
How is it the opposite of reality? The commenter exaggerated some numbers, or charitably made a math error, but as far as I know the thrust is correct: AWS is well known for offering discounted rates to high volume customers. In some parlance I hate but will adopt here: the comment is directionally correct.

Do you have any evidence that AWS doesn't offer volume discounts? I have seen plenty of evidence that they do.

Speaking to the subject of this sub-thread, there is pretty good evidence (Anthropic's own pricing page) that Anthropic also offers volume discounts on their API pricing. Five days hence, they have not taken down this language from their platform/API pricing page:

> For higher rate limits or custom pricing arrangements, contact the sales team.

> Volume discounts may be available for high-volume users. These are negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

> Enterprise customers can contact sales for custom pricing.

Simon has ignored all of my comments arguing this point. That makes me reconsider his credibility: why won't he provide any evidence to support his assertion, or admit he may be wrong here?

link