Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The $200 max plan is for individuals. The individual plans are heavily subsidized. Employers should be using either the Team plan (which has much lower limits than max) or the Enterprise plan (which is entirely billed on usage).

Anthropic know that lots of people are doing all sorts of “bad” things like employers paying for Individual plans, (and using multiple accounts to get more usage) and aren’t yet enforcing the rules… but by the letter of the Anthropic terms, your employer should be paying Anthropic a whole lot more (and that’s one of the reasons why AI usage is going to get very very expensive as soon as the subsidies stop, you and a lot of other people are already paying a lot less than you should)



AFAIK there is nothing in the ToS that forbids an employee paying for the 20x, $200/month plan. I could be wrong about this in which case it'd be useful to have a link the clause.

I think multiple plans are against the ToS, but I'm not doing that.

The Teams plans are more convenient for a number of reasons, but yes, they top out at the 6x plan, not the 20x plan.

Edit: ToS are here https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms and https://www.anthropic.com/legal/commercial-terms

I've re-read it and I'm pretty sure there is nothing that forbids a business paying for a 20x account. Notably they say this in the consumer ToS:

> If you use an email address owned by your employer or another organization, your Account may be linked to the organization's Anthropic enterprise account, and the organization’s administrator may be able to monitor and control the Account, including having access to Materials (defined below). We will provide notice to you before linking your Account to an organization's enterprise account.

which goes at least moderately close to indicating using it in a work environment is allowed.


i used to think the same as op but i think you are right. though they can change the eula at any time im sure....


> The individual plans are heavily subsidized

Not this again. There is not a single shred of evidence for this. In fact multiple times this year alone, people from Anthropic have said that inference and deployed models have positive margins. The big bucks are always being spent on training the next model.


It costs $10B+ a quarter just to train?

It's a simple fact that paying enterprise token rates would cost many times what the individual plans cost. It may well be that the enterprise income outweighs the cheaper tokens on the individual plans for net profit, but using the individual accounts as subsidy is a common tech industry tactic and what you said doesn't prove they're not doing it, either.

It's a little hard to believe they wouldn't be trying to slow the burn rate for an IPO if the inference were truly so profitable. And i find anything they say a little hard to believe all the time anyway (though admittedly they're a lot more trustworthy than OAI)


I agree the API prices are profitable (or at least break even) on an operational basis.

I don't think that means the subscriptions aren't subsidized though! I expect they are, at a carefully calibrated rate.

They want to maximize people trying them.

The real money is the enterprise plans which need a seat price plus API rates (unlike the Teams plans which are a pretty good deal).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: