Thread

1. Aboutplants · 1790703271 · focus · HN ↗

   “OpenAI's new Pro 500 plan offers OpenAI's highest usage allowance and comes with access to its new "Ultrafast" feature — it also costs $500 per month.

   At the same time, OpenAI is also making its existing $200 Pro plan less appealing. In Codex and Work, $200 Pro subscribers will see their included usage decrease from 20x of what the company offers to Plus users, down to 10x of that same allowance. In ChatGPT, meanwhile, GPT-6 Pro message caps will decrease from 200 to 100 per week.”

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.engadget.com&#x2F;2272106&#x2F;openai-adds-dollar500-pro-subscription-nerfs-its-existing-dollar200-tier&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.engadget.com&#x2F;2272106&#x2F;openai-adds-dollar500-pro-s...

   Yikes

   1. surgical_fire · 1790704061 · focus · HN ↗

      OpenAI is deeply unprofitable, particularly on those pro plans.

      The only way is for prices to go up. Way up.

      1. mrtesthah · 1790705083 · focus · HN ↗

         It really does look like OpenAI is trying to gradually get rid of their subscription plans. Every week there is noticeably less usage available to them while each new model release boasts substantially cheaper API token pricing. If this continues then the two pricing models will eventually be at parity.

         1. surgical_fire · 1790712081 · focus · HN ↗

            The subscription plans are a huge money sink, that obviously will have to go away or be priced at a ridiculous level to make sense.

            1. machomaster · 1790717954 · focus · HN ↗

               This is not true at all, at the most fundamental level. There is a reason why all the businesses (IT, gyms, cars, restaurants, streaming services, music, games, stores, apps, food delivery, magazines, newspapers, shaving blades, parfume, etc) are doing everything in their to get subscribers and are willing to decrease prices in order to get customers who are paying the monthly (or even better, a yearly) fee.

               1. surgical_fire · 1790721377 · focus · HN ↗

                  This is delusional.

                  The cost of providing the tokens for a heavy user (and let&#x27;s be frank, the people paying $200 are likely heavy users) is many, many times more than the $200 recurring revenue they generate.

                  1. machomaster · 1790777623 · focus · HN ↗

                     Let&#x27;s be frank, you don&#x27;t know what you are talking about.

                     Deepseek has low prices and despite that their profit margin at the beginning of this year was a whooping 82.9%. Since then, they have significantly raised prices.

                     You can actually check the approx. financials of OpenAI and Anthropic. The growth is insane.

                     There is no reason to believe why OAI&#x2F;Anthropic wouldn&#x27;t have a much better profit margin than DS, taking into account a much higher prices.

                     1. surgical_fire · 1790788973 · focus · HN ↗

                        rofl, and I am the one that doesn&#x27;t know what he is talking about.

                        &gt; Deepseek has low prices and despite that their profit margin at the beginning of this year was a whooping 82.9%. Since then, they have significantly raised prices.

                        DeepSeek increased prices substantially not long ago. I find their profit margins hard to inspect considering I have very little idea what sort of environment they may get in China (from cheaper energy to government subsidies). I honestly doubt you have any insight here as well.

                        &gt; You can actually check the approx. financials of OpenAI and Anthropic.

                        No you can&#x27;t. They are not publicly traded, and they constantly and selectively leak bullshit metrics, from extremely unclear ARR, to extremely deceiving EBITDA. You willingly eat their bullshit and call me a picky eater in return.

                        &gt; There is no reason to believe why OAI&#x2F;Anthropic wouldn&#x27;t have a much better profit margin than DS, taking into account a much higher prices.

                        I see no reason to believe (much less any actual evidence) that OAI or Anthropic have any path to profitability.

                        If inference (particularly for subscriptions) was in anyway as profitable as you claim today, they wouldn&#x27;t need private investment rounds like crazy nor they would be desperate to offload this hot potato in an IPO.

                        82% margins lol. Are you telling me that if you created a machine that turns 1 dollar in 5 what you would do is dillute your ownership of the machine instead of using these fabulous profits to expand the business?

                        1. machomaster · 1790811068 · focus · HN ↗

                           Further proof of my previous verdict...

                           It&#x27;s clear that you are out of your depth when it comes to financials, business economics or a simple &quot;what it takes to run a business&quot;.

                           You need money to make money. Growth strategy vs. self-financing strategy, pros and cons, when to do each. Critical chain. Limiting factor in infrastructure. Will not expand because this already goes over your head.

                           1. surgical_fire · 1790815008 · focus · HN ↗

                              Yes, and apparently they need several trillions of revenue to make the investments make any sense.

                              I&#x27;m not the one out of my depth here.

                              Feel free to have the last word. I prefer to read idiocy in homeopatic doses.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.