"Regular companies" would love to have a growth like that without effectively doing anything.
Since you have no way of knowing when they change stuff, you can't really know if they did change something or it's just bias.
I've experienced that so many times in the last month that I switched to codex. The worst part is, it could be entirely in my head. It's so hard to quantify these changes, and the effort it takes isn't worth it to me. I just go by "feeling".
There are very, very few things that can be completely transparent without giving competitors an advantage. The nice solution solution to this is to be better and faster than your competitors, but sometimes it's easier just to remove transparency.
Enterprise use cases have to have it (or else pawn the YOLO off on their users), so it will be a key way to bucket customers into non-enterprise vs enterprise pricing.
People are complaining they are changing how many tokens you get on a subscription plan.
Why would anyone dislike getting more service for less (or the same) amount of money?
They didn't change this. It's the same number of tokens just a different tokenizer.
I did a similar test with sonnet about 6 months ago and noticed no difference, except that the subscription was way cheaper than API access. This is not the case anymore, at least not for me. The subscription these days only lasts for a few requests before it hits the usage limit and goes over to ”extra usage” billing. Last week I burned through my entire subscription budget and 80$ worth of extra usage in about 1h. That is not sustainable for me and the reason I started looking at alternatives.
From a business perspective it all makes sense. Anthropic recently gave away a ton of extra usage for free. Now people have balance on their accounts that Anthropic needs to pay for with compute, suddenly they release a model that seem to burn those tokens faster than ever. Last week I felt like the model did the opposite, it was stopping mid implementation and forgetting things after only 2 turns. Based on the responses I got it seemed like they were running out of compute, lobotomized their model and made it think less, give shorter answers etc. Probably they are also doing A/B testing on every change so my experience might be wildly different from someone else.
If you are comparing responses in ChatGPT to the API, it's apples and oranges, since one applies a very opinionated system prompt and the other does not.
Since you haven't figured that out in 3 years, I didn't bother reading the rest of your comment.
You should probably not be so quick to dismiss what people say as nonsense.
The problem with subscriptions for this kind of stuff is that it's just incompatible with their cost structure. The worst being, subscription usage is going to follow a diurnal usage pattern that overlaps with business/API users, so they're going to have to be offloaded to compute partners who most likely charge by the resource-second. And also, it's a competitive market, anybody who wants usage-based pricing can just get that.
So you basically end up with adverse selection with consumer subscription models. It's just kind of an incoherent business model that only works when your value proposition is more than just compute (which has a usage-based, pretty fungible market)
They have changed default CC effort to xhigh.
They have said that Opus 4.7 will generate more tokens than 4.6 at same effort level.
They have increased their image input resolution meaning more tokens per image.
etc.
Maybe they are also extracting another 5% tokens from you by prompting it to not talk like a caveman, but that would hardly be noticeable.