←back to thread

Google AI Ultra

(blog.google)
320 points mfiguiere | 4 comments | 20 May 25 18:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
charles_f ◴[20 May 25 20:08 UTC] No.44045393[source]▶
This is the kind of pricing that I expect most AI companies are gonna try to push for, and it might get even more expensive with time. When you see the delta between what's currently being burnt by OpenAI and what they bring home, the sweet point is going to be hard to find.

Whether you find that you get $250 worth out of that subscription is going to be the big question

replies(5): >>44045528 #>>44045820 #>>44045959 #>>44046010 #>>44058223 #
Ancapistani ◴[20 May 25 20:22 UTC] No.44045528[source]▶
I agree, and the problem is that "value" != "utilization".

It costs the provider the same whether the user is asking for advice on changing a recipe or building a comprehensive project plan for a major software product - but the latter provides much more value than the former.

How can you extract an optimal price from the high-value use cases without making it prohibitively expensive for the low-value ones?

Worse, the "low-value" use cases likely influence public perception a great deal. If you drive the general public off your platform in an attempt to extract value from the professionals, your platform may never grow to the point that the professionals hear about it in the first place.

replies(6): >>44045906 #>>44045964 #>>44046505 #>>44047071 #>>44050638 #>>44052117 #
typewithrhythm ◴[20 May 25 22:19 UTC] No.44046505[source]▶
Value capture pricing is a fantasy often spouted by salesmen, the current era AI systems have limited differentiation, so the final cost will trend towards the cost to run the system.

So far I have not been convinced that any particular platform is more than 3 months ahead of the competition.

replies(1): >>44046917 #
bryanlarsen ◴[20 May 25 23:25 UTC] No.44046917[source]▶
OpenAI claims their $200/month plan is not profitable. So this is cost level pricing, not value capture level pricing.
replies(4): >>44047410 #>>44047536 #>>44047651 #>>44049409 #
1. margalabargala ◴[21 May 25 01:08 UTC] No.44047410[source]▶
Not profitable against the cost to train and run the model plus R&D salaries, or just against the cost to run the model?
replies(1): >>44047477 #
2. philistine ◴[21 May 25 01:24 UTC] No.44047477[source]▶
While interesting as a matter of discourse, for any serious consideration you must consider the R&D costs when pricing a model. You have to pay for it somehow.
replies(2): >>44047562 #>>44048079 #
3. bippihippi1 ◴[21 May 25 01:45 UTC] No.44047562[source]▶
how long you amortize the R&D prices over is important too. Do significant discoveries remain relevant for long enough to have enough time to spread the cost out? I'd bet in the current ML market advamces are happening fast enough that they aren't factoring the R&D cost into pricing rn. In fact getting user's to use it is probably giving them a lot of value. Think of apl the data.
4. margalabargala ◴[21 May 25 03:43 UTC] No.44048079[source]▶
There are multiple pathways here.

Company 1 gets a bucket of investment, makes a model, goes belly up. Company 2 buys Company 1's model in a fire sale.

Company 3 uses some open source model that's basically as good as any other and just makes the prettiest wrapper.

Company 4 resells access to other company's models at a discount, similar to companies reselling cellular service.