Basically the title.

Anthropic is doing changes on their help support pages on what looks like it will be the next pricing change regarding how users will use Opus models on Pro Plan.

It's just matter of time that price become so high that Enterprise cannot afford these tools unless they self-host open models. Only problem is open models are coming from China and not many countries trust that to use inside companies. How will it play?

Opus was consuming so much usage that it was basically unusable on anything but the Max plan.

Turns out when the bills start rolling in you need the revenue to pay them. Here comes the bumpy ride

> this is an outdated support article from before we had Opus in Pro plans, we rolled it out for Opus 4.5 in Jan and never updated, you can see in the wayback machine here: https://web.archive.org/web/20251204151142/https://support.c...

> apologies for the confusion

response from @thariq

Investor funds have been subsidizing the inference costs so far.

Investors might move from funding the model providers to funding the enterprises that use those models. That is, they might move from funding the cost of the experiment to funding the value of the result. No funding if there are no demonstrable AI gains.

This is a reasonable shift if this happens. If enough gains have been demonstrated, then investors might go back to funding the model providers. Investors always move towards the highest leverage point.

As long as AI delivers, this would be the rhythm.

This is going to be interesting.

At least for coding, there's little correlation between token spend and the quality (and impact) of the resulting AI suggestion.

This is fine when inference prices are capped (eg via a monthly subscription plan or self-hosting), but rapidly discombobulates the relationship between provider and user otherwise.

It still seems like OpenAI has no moat and neither does anyone else, as the only reasonable way to use the coding slot machines is going to be via open source models on inference-optimized hardware.

Still better than the secret lobotomization they were doing on subscription plan models though.

The messaging around what is and isn't allowed with the various Claude plans has been so very muddled as of late. Add to that declining model performance, changes to default reasoning efforts, expanded token usage, caching bugs, corporate denials and gaslighting -- I don't think it's overstating matters to say they've suffered some major self-inflected reputational damage.

As it stands now, there is so much FUD surrounding their offerings, I'm not sure what they could do in the short term to turn things around.