13 ms·

> The $200 per month subscription comes with a ton of usage. $200 dollars + VAT is half of my rent. I know HN is not a good place to rant on this subject, but

• layer8 6mo ago
  The other part of the bubble is assuming working in projects that allow disclosing any code or project details to a generic third party with that kind of power asymmetry.
• Bombthecat 6mo ago
  That's why ai is for the "rich". Poor people or later on middle class will be left behind....
  • TeMPOraL 6mo ago
    Nah, that's why you cannot not afford the subscriptions these days. Whatever your needs, ever since Claude Code became a thing, subscription costs come out massively cheaper than pay-as-you-go per-token API pricing. Also SOTA models are so much better than anything else, that using older or open models will just cost you more in tokens/electricity than going for SOTA subscription. Subscriptions are definitely middle-class targeted. $20/month is not much for the value provided, at least not in the western world. But if by "rich" you just mean "westerners", then in this sense, the same is and has always been true for computing in general.
    • sroussey 6mo ago
      The subscriptions are purposely sold for less than cost. The subsidy will end some day.
      • TeMPOraL 6mo ago
        We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Especially in context of discussing living at different economic strata, customers are neither expected nor supposed to voluntarily overpay out of a belief this will make an industry not try to rugpull everyone at some point.
  • mememememememo 6mo ago
    Not sure. AI is sort of car ownership price. I think while that ain't poor, that is middle class. So like if you want to start a business of any sort the AI sub is still peanuts. AI is a car, or a dog, or a mild social life, or a utility bill level of cost. And thats for the level needed for a sane typical developer. (AI maximalists need 250k/y, let them slop it out) It is not a Cessna, an infinity pool or a 1 month vacation.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• walletdrainer 6mo ago
  >I'm often flabbergasted about the number of people here that lives in a bubble with regard to the price of tech Sorry, no. You live in the bubble, the people you think are living in a bubble are actually doing the very opposite and taking advantage of the lack of bubbles in our globally connected world. Today, basically anyone can sell any bullshit to billions of people around the world. We’ve never lived in less of a bubble.
  • stavros 6mo ago
    I guess all those people who live in not-SF just can't be bothered to succeed!
    • weird-eye-issue 6mo ago
      To be fair if you think only people in SF can afford that you do kind of live in a bubble.
      • deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      • stavros 6mo ago
        Nobody in this thread claimed that.
        • weird-eye-issue 6mo ago
          The person you were replying to was not talking about SF but you specifically called out SF so you were implying that
          • stavros 6mo ago
            The thread started with "$200 is a lot for most of the world", the person I was replying to said "no it's not, now anyone can sell to billions of people", and I said "company success being concentrated in SF shows that that's not true". I didn't say "only SF can afford $200/mo".
• edgyquant 6mo ago
  For me I pass the token costs off to my clients. Not everyone is a hobbyist burning their own cash on personal projects
• hyperbovine 6mo ago
  Work pays.
  • Epholys 6mo ago
    I'm not sure I've correctly understood what you're implying. If it's that I'm not working, well, I'm employed. It it's that I'm not working enough to not have this money... Well, we still go back to the bubble. Not everywhere in the world you can easily find a job that pays you enough, even if you accept to work more. And the employer will not accept to give developers a $200/month subscription, even less for personal use. If it's that I'm not working enough and I should go freelancing to work as much as I want and get rich (I'm extrapolating). Well, you're right, I could do that. But (at least at first), I would work a lot more for much less money. And even if I become a recognized freelancer, it doesn't change the fact that I'll earn less money compared to the baseline of SF, or even the USA in the tech sector in general. So, bubble again. I could also, like someone said, put the tokens cost into my hourly/daily rate, but I'll be much more expensive than other freelancers. Also, but that's a "me case" compared to my previous points, health issues can greatly affect how much work you can do.
    • rob0 6mo ago
      > I could also, like someone said, put the tokens cost into my hourly/daily rate, but I'll be much more expensive than other freelancers. Do you have any evidence of that? I think the OPs are assuming this as a premise so their logic is probably valid but may not be sound logic for you.
      • Epholys 6mo ago
        I don't have any hard evidence, no. Instinctively, if we suppose all the newbies freelancers without any reputation start with the same lowest rate possible to be competitive, passing additional cost to my client will mechanically increase my rate. Putting me in disadvantage about getting any work. And with the difference of monetary value for the same price of tokens, the rate delta is higher. It's a simplified model of the world, but it feels like simple economic rules. I assume the comment I'm referring to was written by someone who is already established and for Wich the token cost passing is lower relatively to my environment.
• weird-eye-issue 6mo ago
  You think I don't understand that? I'm friends with people who make little more than that amount per month. But it's not all that relevant to this conversation. It's not like this is the first time economic inequality is a thing. It's just as relevant to me factoring in your salary the next time I go buy a car.
  • Epholys 6mo ago
    First, I've assumed you were in the bubble I described, but that's not the case, so sorry bout that. Also, I think it's relevant to the conversation. You replied to someone who said that "you" (undirected pronoun I suppose) can't afford the SOTA that the $200/month Anthropic subscription comes with a ton of usage. So I interpreted it as a general statement. It wasn't what you meant? I'm a bit lost about who you're talking to/about in your first comment: the person you respond to, a general statement for everyone reading, or yourself?
    • weird-eye-issue 6mo ago
      I assume when somebody says you and is not talking about anyone in particular they mean that it's infeasible for virtually everybody which is certainly not the case. Also you conveniently disregarded the fact that is available on the $20 per month plan.
      • Epholys 6mo ago
        Okay, I understand better. I interpreted your answer as "well, it's $200, everybody can afford it". Clearly a misunderstanding. Going back to the $20 plan, yes, I agree it's much more accessible. I didn't talk about it because I've seen a lot of comments here, on blogs, on social media about how a $200 subscription for Claude is a no brainer. And it got on my nerves, so I wanted to tell how much money it can be. To you (and it was misguided reading your answers), and to concerned HN commenters in general.
• mememememememo 6mo ago
  Thanks for the alternative perspective. I think I am in the middle. I can afford $200/m but it'd be a brainer. And I don't pay that as I barely use home AI enough to warrant it. I am also amazed at the richer end of HN but now I realize I am priviledged. Earned it? Like fuck I did. Lucky to be born a geek in late 20c. I'd be useless as a middle ages guy.
  • throwaway173738 6mo ago
    If I found myself in the middle ages I’d just become a blacksmith or a miller.
    • Filligree 6mo ago
      Do you have the genetics for that? It takes a lot of raw strength, and not that much intelligence.
• coldtea 6mo ago
  In the US/Western Europe? Because for devs especially in the former, $200 is pocket change, especially for a core productivity tool. And the rent would be in the $1200 to $3000 easily. Same for houses. Maybe not in NY or SF, but in most of the US there's no shortage of house spaces and redundant rooms.
  • Epholys 6mo ago
    I've seen those comments about $200/month and empty rooms here, so I suppose they mainly come from the US, yes. So yes, you describe a situation that I feel like a lot of people here don't understand is not the norm. I compared the subscription with my rent precisely because it's easier to compare: with your numbers it would be like paying from $600 up to $1500 / month. Pretty hard to justify.
    • lostmsu 6mo ago
      > Because for devs especially Are you not a dev? If not, what would you use a coding tool for? They still require handholding for anything largeish. Still much cheaper than outsource.
• dahart 6mo ago
  $200/mo is a lot, sure, but the shocking part of that comparison is your rent. I didn’t know $400/mo apartments still existed. For most people in the US and EU, $200 would be closer to 15%-20% of rent I think? My cell phone bill for my family is almost $200/mo. Last year, at first, $200 seemed crazy. Now that I’m getting addicted to coding agents, not so much. Some companies are paying API rates for AI for employees, and it’s a lot more than $200/mo. It seems like funny money, and I’m not sure it’ll last.
  • Aerroon 6mo ago
    It is my belief that rent price scales with the leftover income people have after they've paid for other necessities. Ie if you're from a poorer country/area then things like milk and gasoline will cost a similar amount (maybe 2x difference), but rent will cost a lot less. As people in a country get richer they start paying a larger and larger share of their income as rent of various forms. Even the US has places with cheap rent/housing. The downside is that there's no (well-paying) work nearby.
    • dahart 6mo ago
      It’s true that average rent prices are regional and poorer areas have lower rents, but that doesn’t tend to make much difference in urban areas and large cities where the majority of people live now. Why do you feel that rent scales with disposable income? Economists generally say the opposite based on housing being a core necesessity; that people pay rent in proportion to their income, and only what’s left over the the disposable amount. That’s why we have the 30% rule, for example. You’re technically correct, btw, rental housing is a market and is subject to market forces, meaning what people are willing to pay. I’m just not so sure about framing rent as being lower priority than other necessities. And rent prices have been increasing faster than other necessities, and faster than income, so that might be a confounding factor in your argument. Still, my initial reaction above is due to the fact that in the US and in Europe in most large cities, the average rent is north of $1000/mo.
      • Aerroon 6mo ago
• 1123581321 6mo ago
  It’s a good reminder. Claude Max costs about as much as the global poverty line ($3/day.) I think it’s okay to invest in it, but we should try to make sure it’s worthwhile, and also invest in charity.