The mirror is missing the next post: "Compared to today, this works out to a 17% reduction in weekly limits on Claude Code"
But I do understand that it's a little hard to characterize the amount of compute they're selling while obfuscating the business model enough that it still works. Demand, costs, supply, capabilities, competition change wildly week to week.
Selling a standardized "token" via the API with gas-like pricing works a lot better for transparency. But I think there's a world where the ambiguous subscription pricing is net beneficial for users and providers. Allowing some degree of price discrimination should benefit everyone in aggregate, assuming there's real competition and not yet another duopoly..
150% -> 125%
25÷150 = .1667
That's how they arrived at 17%.
Somehow enterprise, Anthropic is still ahead and I genuinely can't tell how or why? The models aren't that great (except Fable but has data retention issues). The prices are not that great. Claude Code is not as good as Codex. What gives?