this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
496 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
85515 readers
4276 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is just Gym Economics though, right? They work on the assumption that only a small number of their member will actually use the service heavily, but the overwhelming majority will turn up to use the treadmill a few times then never visit again.
Ok but it would take 70 users paying $200 to cover the cost of $14,000. So if one person maxes out their usage, there needs to be 69 users who do not use their account at all but are still paying. And that’s just the break even point, still no profit for the AI company.
I’m struggling to believe that many people would pay that much and then underuse the subscription. It seems far more likely to me that this pricing model isn’t sustainable.
For a consumer service, absolutely. That's too much money for a household to ignore and they are actually paying attention.
For a business user? Quite possible. My company bought subscription to one of the providers for every single employee, no matter the role. A large number don't use it at all (if they do anything, it's using a chat that's either free or included with something else), and most of the rest use it lightly. We have only a handful of folks trying to use it as much as possible. Companies frequently just buy for everyone instead of micromanaging who needs or doesn't need a service.
I thought that Anthropic et al. were charging enterprise accounts based on token usage rather than just a flat subscription fee. That’s why you see things like this.
Even worse, that calculation is based on that their API pricing is currently providing a positive margin. From what I have seen and heard at this point, API pricing is at best breaking even.