[CuriouslyC]

Subs lose money on individuals to get those individuals to force their companies to pay for the corporate plan. The economics are bad, but so are the economics of grocery stores selling Milk and Bananas at a loss to drive traffic, which they basically ALL do.

[eptcyka]

I pay a lot but barely use it except for some intense days, where the lower plans would have throttled me in like 30 minutes. API billing is still more expensive. If you want to not pay much, go to openrouter and use chinese models. They are cost efficient.

[HDThoreaun]

I havent seen any evidence showing that subscriptions cost the labs money.

[toomuchtodo]

Companies don’t want to pay when the value realized does not exceed the cost.

AI Savings Misses 'Should Be Making Executives Uncomfortable,' Bain Says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48359010 - June 2026 (0 comments)

AI sticker shock hits corporate America- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48307098 - May 2026 (146 comments)

[CuriouslyC]

What's the realized value of not losing your engineers because you're letting them use their preferred tools?

[toomuchtodo]

Retain and hire the engineers who don’t require heavy use of AI to deliver value? The current SWE job market speaks for itself. Where will you go where they will let you burn up tokens in a high cost of capital macro?

ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) is over, software engineers no longer call the shots now that there isn’t vast amounts of capital chasing yield, and that capital bidding up salaries and keeping the labor market for engineers tight.

If you are x more productive with generative AI, very shortly you are going to have to prove it with a token budget (or, if you’re lucky, an org willing to spend for on prem hardware for capped token cost, fixed capex vs uncapped opex).

The comparison is not SWE vs SWE with AI. It is SWE vs SWE with AI with a constrained token budget ($x/month) delivering the same value at the same or lower cost. If you cannot prove that you are wildly (vs marginally) more productive with the AI, why would they pay for it? Prove it.

[toomuchtodo]

> The comparison is not SWE vs SWE with AI. It is SWE vs SWE with AI with a constrained token budget ($x/month) delivering the same value at the same or lower cost. If you cannot prove that you are wildly (vs marginally) more productive with the AI, why would they pay for it? Prove it.

https://abhishek-shankar.com/posts/ai-coding-bill-headcount-...

> That is the real content of the Uber story, and it is why filing it under "budgeting discipline" misses what is actually unfolding across half the engineering organizations in the country right now. They ran the same experiment Uber ran, most of them without Uber's $3.4 billion R&D cushion to absorb the surprise, and almost none of them having modeled the heavy-user tail or instrumented the gap between tokens consumed and value shipped. The reckoning will arrive for each of them on their own fiscal calendar, and the first instinct will be the wrong one. The tool is too good to abandon, the bill is too large to absorb, and the only durable resolution runs through a question the entire rollout was designed to defer.

> You cannot get labor-replacement economics out of a tool you deployed as a labor supplement, and the bill comes due before anyone is willing to admit which one they actually bought.