$10/MTok in, $50/MTok out I'm sure all these enterprises will be thrilled to see their spend double overnight. Probably more because Fable probably chuns twice as fast as well.
$10/MTok in, $50/MTok out
I'm sure all these enterprises will be thrilled to see their spend double overnight. Probably more because Fable probably chuns twice as fast as well.
The amount of usage that this thing burns is… Something else. And how they’re dealing with it is a head scratcher for me: I understand the idea of them being in an IPO and needing to create hype....
The amount of usage that this thing burns is… Something else. And how they’re dealing with it is a head scratcher for me:
From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost.
On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits. If capacity allows, we’ll extend the included window.
After this point—when sufficient capacity allows us to do so—we aim to restore Fable 5 as a standard part of subscription plans. We intend to do this as quickly as we can.
I understand the idea of them being in an IPO and needing to create hype. But, in an ambient where we’re starting to notice cold feet around AI, where people like Scam Altman are starting to backtrack on what they said, where these companies are starting to accept the reality of how their business model was unsustainable and raise prices… Doesn’t this just make them look worse?
Wouldn’t working on optimizations and deliver the same quality for lower compute be a more sensible choice? I’m not even talking about pragmatism per se - there’s nothing pragmatic about the current market situation - I’m talking about how an AI company like Anthropic would create more investor confidence if they delivered a model just as good as sonnet but runs in cheaper hardware, and so they could promise that they have a path to profitability.
But instead - even though they aren’t profitable as afaik don’t have a clear plan - they deliver an even more expensive model…?
But… Meh, what do I know.
Edit: Yeah, I don’t see anyone paying these prices
Pricing for both models is $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens. Developers can use claude-fable-5 via the Claude API.
As long as they're supply-constrained due to datacenter capacity and there are customers willing to pay, they make more money by charging more. It's economics 101. This is expense-account pricing,...
As long as they're supply-constrained due to datacenter capacity and there are customers willing to pay, they make more money by charging more. It's economics 101.
This is expense-account pricing, but I assume that there will be businesses willing to pay more than I will as a hobbyist. Meanwhile, I'll stick with the Chinese models I've been using.
I imagine prices will eventually come down due to increased supply, algorithmic improvements and competition.
Wasn't there recently an article about AI companies starting to be profitable because of different agent pricing models for end customers (subscriptions) and enterprises (usage tokens only)? I'm...
But instead - even though they aren’t profitable as afaik don’t have a clear plan - they deliver an even more expensive model…?
Wasn't there recently an article about AI companies starting to be profitable because of different agent pricing models for end customers (subscriptions) and enterprises (usage tokens only)? I'm an end user and don't have a Claude subscription, so I never checked.
Also I think there's a good chance that in the background they're doing both.
$10/MTok in, $50/MTok out
I'm sure all these enterprises will be thrilled to see their spend double overnight. Probably more because Fable probably chuns twice as fast as well.
The amount of usage that this thing burns is… Something else. And how they’re dealing with it is a head scratcher for me:
I understand the idea of them being in an IPO and needing to create hype. But, in an ambient where we’re starting to notice cold feet around AI, where people like Scam Altman are starting to backtrack on what they said, where these companies are starting to accept the reality of how their business model was unsustainable and raise prices… Doesn’t this just make them look worse?
Wouldn’t working on optimizations and deliver the same quality for lower compute be a more sensible choice? I’m not even talking about pragmatism per se - there’s nothing pragmatic about the current market situation - I’m talking about how an AI company like Anthropic would create more investor confidence if they delivered a model just as good as sonnet but runs in cheaper hardware, and so they could promise that they have a path to profitability.
But instead - even though they aren’t profitable as afaik don’t have a clear plan - they deliver an even more expensive model…?
But… Meh, what do I know.
Edit: Yeah, I don’t see anyone paying these prices
As long as they're supply-constrained due to datacenter capacity and there are customers willing to pay, they make more money by charging more. It's economics 101.
This is expense-account pricing, but I assume that there will be businesses willing to pay more than I will as a hobbyist. Meanwhile, I'll stick with the Chinese models I've been using.
I imagine prices will eventually come down due to increased supply, algorithmic improvements and competition.
Wasn't there recently an article about AI companies starting to be profitable because of different agent pricing models for end customers (subscriptions) and enterprises (usage tokens only)? I'm an end user and don't have a Claude subscription, so I never checked.
Also I think there's a good chance that in the background they're doing both.