But opportunity cost is not actual cost. “If everyone just kept paying but used our service less we would be more profitable” is true, but not in any meaningful way.

Are Anthropic currently unable to sell subscriptions because they don’t have capacity?

Opportunity cost is not the same thing as actual cost. They might have made more money if they were capable of selling the API instead of CC, but I would never tell my company to use CC all the time if I didn’t have a personal subscription.

> If Anthropic's compute is fully saturated then the Claude code power users do represent an opportunity cost to Anthropic much closer to $5,000 then $500.

I think it's the other way around? Sparse use of GPU farms should be the more expensive thing. Full saturation means that we can exploit batching effects throughout.

Don’t give them any ideas, please! I need my 100 USD subscription with generous Opus usage!

You know who also loves to use the term "opportunity cost"?

The entertainment industry. They still tell you about how much money they're leaving on the table because people pirate stuff.

What would happen in reality for entertainment is people would "consume" far less "content".

And what would happen in reality for Anthropic is people would start asking themselves if the unpredictability is worth the price. Or at best switch to pay as you go and use the API far less.

I prefer car analogies

> The argument in this article is like comparing the cost of a Rolex to a random brand of mechanical watch on gear count

I mean... rolex is overpriced brand whose cost to consumers is mainly just marketting in itself. Its production cost is nowhere close to selling price and looking at gears is fair way of evaluating that

You can rent the GPUs and everything needed to run the model. Opportunity cost is not a real cost here.

Only thing that matters is if the users would have paid $5000 if they don't have option to buy subscription. And I highly doubt they would have.