[Ucalegon]

List price is not paid price and, as Anthropic has shown, initial list price is going to rise.

Do you have pricing, paid by businesses, plesae provide the contracts that prove you assertion that this pricing holds true, or are we supposed to believe you?

[simonw]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

Anthropic have prices they charge for their models. These prices are what you pay if you use the API, and they are also what you pay if you are an "enterprise" customer - generally any company with 150+ employees.

I haven't seen Anthropic raise the prices of an existing model after it has launched. They sometimes raise prices when they ship a model - Fable is $10/$50 where Opus 4.8 is $5/$25.

They also have monthly subscriptions for individuals, which are a notoriously good deal. THOSE are definitely less trustworthy and predictable than the API list prices, since the subscription allowed quotas can and have changed in the past.

What am I missing here?

[Ucalegon]

Do you know what an enterprise is?

Are you an enterprise?

Do you know what enterprise pricing is for these models and the associated legalese around the models?

Is your experience the same as an enterprise?

How can anyone take what you, as a person, be the same as a business, both for pricing or compliance or governance or anything else?

And why should we trust you for if we are a business who might want to do any business with Anthropic?

[simonw]

Anthropic's enterprise pricing has been thoroughly covered over the last few weeks. I've talked to plenty of people who are paying those prices.

You can chose to trust me or not based on my track record.

From your posting history it looks like you have a whole lot more relevant experience with enterprise software deals than I do. Have you learned anything interesting about how Anthropic pricing works?

[Ucalegon]

Simon can you show that? Like, do you have proof?

>You can chose to trust me or not based on my track record.

Mind you, when people challenge you here, you ask for the same thing, like you ask them for public proof.

Why do you have a different standard when its asked of you? If you have asked for others for proof, provide it.

You have made the claim, support it.

[lunchbucket]

They told you what they know. Maybe there's enterprise contracts with different prices, maybe there aren't - but evidently this person either isn't aware or can't disclose what they know, and it seems like it's the first one, so what do you want from them?

[simonw]

Which claim are you talking about here?

[Ucalegon]

Which claim is Simon talking about? And how does that validate what Simon is talking about?

Like we can talk about thing as they are, given the incentive structures that may or may not exist, but lets not like all of this is abstract or impartial.

You are not not someone who is commenting from a source of objective truth. Nor are you looking at every contract that is singed and has some type of insight.

Regardless of if you are being paid or not, you have a bias. And that bias isn't called out nor is it something that you deal with as to the results that you see.

Or you do...

Just be honest.

[solenoid0937]

What a bizarre comment. simonw is well known and widely respected.

[Ucalegon]

To you, if you have specific issues with what I said, I would love to address them, rather than assuming that Simon is always right. Cause let me tell you...

[solenoid0937]

You're being bizarrely conspiratorial and litigious. Simonw explained very clearly how pricing works, and you can learn this for yourself as well.

[Ucalegon]

That should be a pricing model that we all have access to. You are more than able to provide that pricing model.

Being litigious, assumes that I have taken legal action, which I have not, so be better with your words.