Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

I don't know why people here can't accept the simple fact that AI companies are offering cheap "unlimited" plans as a loss leader to tie you to their ecosystem, and then make up for it via add-ons, upsells, ads etc. If you use those API tokens to access external services it defeats the purpose. The hack may have worked so far, mainly because no one was checking, but they are all going to tighten the access eventually (as Anthropic and Google have already done).

Either stick to first party products or pay for API use.

View on HN

No one is shocked that they don't allow this. Everyone is shocked that they silently, permanently banned the user with no recourse and it took significant effort even to find out that much.

Sorry to be that guy, but given how often Google has done this for lesser infringements (some reported here on HN), is anyone really "shocked" by the permabans?

The apparent shock around this sort of thing always feels like cope for the fact that we (myself included) understand the power imbalance between Google and its customers but don't want to admit it.

There's plenty of evidence at this point, and I feel like we should be using that emotional energy to actually do something about it (like switching providers for critical personal services, for example).

>Sorry to be that guy, but given how often Google has done this for lesser infringements (some reported here on HN), is anyone really "shocked" by the permabans?

Yes, we are surprised. Google understands our surprise, too. To quote the Google employee another commenter mentioned: "We understand that a subset of these users were not aware that this was against our ToS and will get a path for them to come back on"

https://x.com/_mohansolo/status/2025766889205739899

Update: Version 1.19.6, released Feb 26, 2026!

>Account Remediation Pathway

>Introduced a formal remediation process for accounts suspended due to Terms of Service violations. See our official announcement.

When reading HN I get the impression that a lot of people are convinced monthly plans are very profitable for the companies, I don’t have any numbers but to me it always seemed like a bait and switch or ”bait and make you pay with your data too”.

I'll bite. I suspect that these plans aren't as intensely subsidized as people assume. I believe that API usage is probably also not subsidized at all. First, yes, subs are probably subsided, but I bet a significant % of users are profitable to serve, especially the "chat" users who don't use dev tools and have short context window conversations. Yes, I think the subs also exist as a driver to get lock-in and market share. Claude Code, for example, is very good and I stopped using their competition when they released their superior product.

That said, I assume that (1) their long-term goal is to create cheaper-to-serve models that fit within their pricing targets, and use the (temporarily) subsidized subscriptions to find the features and costs that best serve the market. Maybe even while capturing more margin on the API in comparison (eg keep API prices high while lowering cost to serve a token). I've largely stopped using Opus, and sometimes even chose to use Haiku, because the cheaper models are fast and usually serves my needs. It's very possible to work all-day and barely hit the usage limits with Haiku on the $20/mo option. Long term, that could be profitable outright.

And (2) subscriptions with lower SLOs than API calls have the potential to provide "infill" usage for high fixed-cost GPUs as an alternative to idling, similar to their batch APIs. I'd believe that overnight usage limits could/should be higher than during California work-hours. I assume most big providers have pre-paid fixed cost servers, so pumping more tokens through an otherwise idle GPU is "free". They can also do a lot more cost-optimization behind the scenes, such as prompt caching, to reduce the cost of tokens.

> I'll bite. I suspect that these plans aren't as intensely subsidized as people assume. I believe that API usage is probably also not subsidized at all. First, yes, subs are probably subsided, but I bet a significant % of users are profitable to serve, especially the "chat" users who don't use dev tools and have short context window conversations. Yes, I think the subs also exist as a driver to get lock-in and market share. Claude Code, for example, is very good and I stopped using their competition when they released their superior product.

I somewhat agree, somewhat disagree with this. I think API based is not subsidised. If you do some basic napkin math they should have enough room there to serve the models below cost if the models aren't insanely large (you can compare with 3rd party openrouter offerings and have an idea of what $/Mtok you can serve per model size. e.g. Haiku level models can be ~700B tokens and still be profitably served)

I think 20-200$ all-you-can-prompt are likely subsidised. If you track token usage (there are many 3rd party tools that do this) you can get 4-5x the API usage out of them (it used to be even higher before they added weekly limits. People were seeing 10-20x usage). Now I think that's a bit tough to make the napkin math work out. I've compared sessions served over API with sessions from subscriptions, and you get much more usage out of them, even with 5h / weekly limits. Strictly for coding, I think they're subsidising them.

I somewhat disagree that they're doing it for market share / user lock-in. I think signals and usage trends are much more valuable for them. While there might be user retention for "casual" users (i.e. web) I think the power users in coding will move as soon as the competition has a better product. So at the end of the day having data to improve models and have the "best" model in a niche is more productive than retaining users with an inferior product. That is an assumption tho, and there isn't much math you can do to figure that out from the outside.

One thing to remember is that not all users are going to max out their plan.

This is more likely to occur on $20 plans though, especially since those are often necessary to unlock the more useful features (e.g. deep research) so people might be paying for that even if they don't actually use the tokens.

OTOH someone who's paying $200 will likely want to squeeze the most out of their subscription for that amount of money. So I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that $20 users are subsidizing the $200 ones.

As a company with little other (any?) revenue you have to include all costs though. Data centers, power, hardware, salaries, marketing, etc. Not just training models and serving requests.

I don’t see how it’s not subsidized substantially considering how much money they’re burning right now (I only base that on their rounds though).

That's not really how people discuss subsidies and finances though. Yea I guess a not-profitable company means that every operation is technically a "subsidy", but again, that's not really what those words mean.

Anthropic (as the ever-chosen example) has explicitly stated they've made more money than they've spent on training when they sell/serve a particular model in the past. They said that the reason they're negative is the next model costs more than the "profit" they've made on the previous one. This wasn't strict financial disclosures, but I'd presume this means that their data center costs (eg. power, hardware, etc) are baked into that, but probably not company-wide costs like marketing.

They do have several sources of revenue, all tied to their models: APIs, Subscriptions, and model licensing. Their licensing and APIs most likely have a positive margin -> the money they make to serve the n+1 customer is more than the cost to serve that customer, on a per-financial-transaction basis. It's speculated that they lose money per-customer to serve the subscriptions, and they eat that cost... for various potential reasons.

It is when you discuss financial health of a company, at least that’s what I picked up after doing fintech and loans, it’s the bottom line that matters, or the projected outcome of the same. What point is there making money in area A when area B costs more. If you can stop doing B without affecting A that’s usually what happens, but it’s not always possible.

Saying ”we’re positive except the foundation of the company (training models) isn’t” is a tell tale sign.

And I’m sure Anthropic is doing what most others are doing, heavily massaging numbers to make them look good for VC rounds.

> First, yes, subs are probably subsided, but I bet a significant % of users are profitable to serve, especially the "chat" users who don't use dev tools and have short context window conversations.

Why would WebChat users need a subscription? It's free; I've even pasted tarballs of entire repos in there, and haven't hit limits!

More limited features, like lack of model selection, more restricted use of “thinking” models.

>>> a significant % of users are profitable to serve, especially the "chat" users who don't use dev tools and have short context window conversations.

> More limited features, like lack of model selection, more restricted use of “thinking” models.

Yeah, but... do the "chat" users actually care about any of that? Would they even notice a difference?

My point is that, if all you're doing is chat, there's no value in any of the subscription models - for chat the free webapps are more than sufficient, so even someone spending the whole day chatting about something isn't going to hit any limits.

I’m a “chat” user and notice the difference.

Exactly. The free version is good enough for the vast majority of casual users. According to estimates about 2%-5% of ChatGPT users pay for the service. And people who do pay are looking to get their money's worth.

Seems like a hassle when open source models are just as good. Can go with any hosting provider. Might have to wait 3-4 weeks for them to duplicate whatever Anthropic is doing with token caching. But then you get 10x cheaper inference.

I feel like this game is just a hot potato, can you get retail to hold the bag game

I have them all. They're not just as good. Whoever tells you that looked only at the benchmarks, not real use. They all fall short at some point.

Kimi K2.5 is the best one, but it's still not at the level of what Anthropic released with opus 4.5.

We’ll have to give it 3 weeks.

Open models are very far in performance from the top models of Anthropic, OpenAI and Google. And that's skipping over the fact you need somewhere to host them.

Recent open-weights models(MiniMax, Kimi K2, GLM, Mistral) are also quite good, can be self-hosted or accessed through 3rd-party hosters or OpenRouter and they are sufficient for most of the tasks. Just stop paying overpriced "unlimited" subscription bul**hit.

OpenAI and the Chinese companies let you all you can eat openly. Anthropic's lead vs OAI is slight and these things are going to homogenize quickly. The market is going open and the people trying to keep it closed are just generating ill will pointlessly.

So what are they supposed to do?

Race to burn as much cash as possible in hopes that the other goes bankrupt first?

These models aren't profitable at the fixed subscription tiers.

That is the plan yes.

> Race to burn as much cash as possible in hopes that the other goes bankrupt first?

This has been standard in the VC playbook for the last decade or so. The only moat these companies have is the size of their war chests.

>OpenAI and the Chinese companies let you all you can eat openly.

You say this, but I guarantee that when they do offer a plan similar to Google/Anthropic's dedicated coding "unlimited" subscription, they will do the exact same thing. Maybe they will let OpenClaw in as a first party because of their partnership with the creator.

But none of these are unlimited, that was never the expectation. It's a flat rate for a flat (but hidden) amount of usage. What's disgusting is that they want the good parts of subs (low usage subs), but then just ban the bad parts (high usage people). I don't care whether that's technically possible, it's incredibly scummy.

hmm? openAI has a $200 subscription too.

https://chatgpt.com/explore/pro

Reread my post again

OpenClaw is a massive liability. Regardless of the creator's employment, OpenAI is not dumb enough to officially release a ticking PR bomb like that. I don't know what they'll do with the creator, I guess pump him for ideas and keep him off the streets. (Simply telling him to design out the same thing in a form that is releasable should be enough to keep him quiet for a good long time.)

OpenClaw doesn't need the creator in order to continue to be a reputation risk nightmare for all of the AI companies, though.

Where does Anthropic offer an "unlimited" subscription? All of the plans mentioned on https://claude.com/pricing have limits, same as usage of Codex on OpenAI's ChatGPT subscription plans. If Google forgot to actually enforce a rate limit (that they do mention on https://antigravity.google/pricing) on theirs, that sounds like a huge oversight.

Likely we'll just move to the Chinese models.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com