This is my take too, although I'm not prepared for a max400 reality to replace the max200, but... I hate all of the whingeing. Piggies at the buffet line seem to be the loudest on this subject.

I would understand the move, but boy would it play right into the "AI is only here to make the rich even richer" feeling wouldn't it?

> "We're sorry, what we were able to give you for $100/mo before now needs to be $200/mo (or more). We miscalculated/we were too generous/gave too much away for too little. It's a new technology, we are seeing a ton of demand, we are trying to run a business, hope you understand. If you don't want it, don't pay for it."

Anthropic's thing has always been that they are perceived as slightly ahead of the competition, if they 2X their pricing then the competition that used to be "slightly worse" suddenly becomes an absolute bargain and guts their user base.

It is one thing to pay 100 a month to make calendar apps for your linkedin and birds on bicycles to get invited to talks, paying 200 HOWEVER

Are we at the point where there are external constraints that cash can't solve?

Just put everyone on pay per use with the API and rip the band aid off.

Honestly, I wish they couldn’t subsidize with VC cash and such and offer below cost to begin with. Like I wish it were illegal. Basically this allows things like Uber, more or less putting taxis out of business and then being worse than what they replaced.

I’d like to see a lot more than entitled whining. I would like to see the fist of regulation slammed down on the back of these tech shenanigans where they know they’ll never be able to match the prices they’re starting with

I wish they would too. I’d respect them more for the transparency. I think everyone’s enshitiffication sensors have rightly been dialed up over the years. So without explanations for the regressions it just feels like another example