Anything over 150 seats means you need to pay at token rates plus the $20/user. My day job is operational (no coding at all) and I'm spending ~$300 a month on a few chats with Claude/Cowork a day over the course of a month.
Claude can be very good but enterprise pricing doesn't make sense to me.
A lot of startups pile up enormous amount of accounts, companies don't need the Enterprise Anthropic solution, they can just subscribe to many accounts and have their own staff KYC for each (1 codex, 1 claude, 1 google and so-on).
Common talking point. There's enough evidence for the counter argument that this is essentially misinformation. I have no idea why it's so often repeated with confidence.
> No evidence is shared
Help an open-minded critic out.
How much is Waymo burning a year? 3B on 300M ARR? Anthropic is what 5B on 20B ARR? Waymo is 3x older. Why don't we hear such confident statements about how subsidized their rides are?
It's one thing to speculate it's another to parade it as fact. Even if the S1 reveals an unprofitable business today, you can still only claim it's unlikely.
We do. We hear it less often because no-one is talking about how Waymo changes how we all need to work or whatever, that's all.
Also, we do have some evidence for my position:
- We know that the consumer Claude plans provide _way_ more tokens than you could get if you were paying API prices. This is a huge part of why Anthropic's limits on other harnesses for subscription customers is such a big deal. So either their profit margin on API tokens is absurdly high, most consumer subscribers don't come anywhere near their rate limits, or they're losing money on the consumer subscriptions. - It appears that complains about people running into rate limits are common, which suggests the "consumers usually don't use much of their subscription" explanation is incorrect. - We also know that Anthropic has just become profitable, almost certainly driven mostly by enterprise customers. This rules out the "they make a very high profit margin on the API" explanation, since if that was the case they'd likely have been profitable much earlier.
Taken together, I think the case that their consumer subscriptions lose them money on net is pretty strong, even though their enterprise subscriptions (and API pricing) does make them a profit.
To be clear I'm not arguing against this position, just questioning the confidence with which people claim that the current consumer subs are not a sustainable offering and a merely temporary.
With this kind of opaque billing, how can I reasonably deploy any AI?
I'm only doing a cursory search, but it seems OpenWebUI doesn't support Anthropic caching, and they don't intend to? Other providers handle caching automatically (apparently?) but caching has to be specifically managed by the client with Anthropic. If that's correct that OpenWebUI doesn't support it, it would really send your costs spiralling, because you're being billed for all the tokens in the entire multi-turn conversation on every turn:
https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/issues/4887
I have no experience with OpenWebUI though (honestly, first time I've heard of it). Just trying to be helpful. If I'm completely incorrect then apologies in advance for sending you down the wrong path.