As an individual I'm still paying for a ChatGPT Plus plan since $20/mo gives me a lot of value and I use many multiples of $20 at API rates per month. But in terms of capabilities, I am entirely satisfied when using my Opencode Go plan with open models like Deepseek Flash/Pro, Kimi and MiMo.
At this point keeping my ChatGPT subscription isn't because of a significant capability gap compared to open models. It's 90% about the value of the subscription priced well below API rates (10% the fun of trying latest models).
If OpenAI/Anthropic dropped their cheap subscriptions or drastically undermined the value proposition I'd be happy using open models exclusively and currently barely notice a difference switching back and forth for the vast majority of tasks.
I'm expecting the subs to increasingly provide less value as the US labs IPO and follow the SV pattern of moving from marketshare capture mode to profit extraction mode. Thankfully I'm already comfortable using OpenCode with open models and avoid lock-in to any specific harness so would be a very soft landing.
[–] baq 4 days ago
Haven’t tried haiku 5.5, I expect it to simply run out too fast, but they did change the price below 100k tokens recently; perhaps I should check it out.
[–] ngruhn 4 days ago
[–] ehnto 4 days ago
You could argue it's worth that much because of the value that compliance brings the enterprise, but it's just another gouging excercise. Certainly nothing unique to AI companies.
[–] mike_hearn 4 days ago
[–] CodesInChaos 4 days ago
[–] mschuster91 4 days ago
Alternatively, one can say that the enterprise customers plus a metric shitload of VC and shareholder/investor money heavily subsidizes cheap personal plans.
It's the same playbook that Adobe used, provide cheap plans for academia and turn a blind eye towards piracy from non-commercial actors, get the young people hooked hard on Adobe's software and workflows, and they will demand that their employers purchase the nice, high profit commercial/enterprise plans.
[–] ywvcbk 4 days ago
They are of course are the ones paying for R&D of new models but its not exactly clear if gross margins on subscriptions are negative. It might be just normal market segmentation just like SaaS companies charging enterprise users many times more than private individuals.
[–] SR2Z 3 days ago
I think that it's not only possible but likely that the frontier labs are profitable on an ongoing basis, and it's mainly the research and capex which make them look like impending disasters.
Realistically, OpenAI and Anthropic are each probably worth ~$1T each. Anthropic can already easily justify that based on revenue alone. OpenAI isn't far off. Consider how quickly these companies are growing and the fact that they maintain a small but significant edge, I don't think the bubble is going to pop. Just deflate a little.
[–] mschuster91 3 days ago
And that is the much more relevant problem. Capable open-weight models from China, European labs or competitors with cash to burn (i.e. Meta!) erode all the moat that the major labs have, and tooling functionality like MCP, CLI interfaces or integration into third-party tools like IDEs quickly gets cloned.
Simply printing money by running inference does not justify valuations in the billions of dollars, because anyone can do so.
[–] SR2Z 2 days ago