undefined

points

[-]

DeepSeek permanently cut its V4-pro API prices by 75% because they were too expensive. Without the price cut, Deepseek V4-pro tokens would have cost more than resold Opus 4.8 tokens.

Opus 4.8 is a more capable model, so almost nobody was going to pay for V4-pro at the original price.

by ssivark15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Without the price cut, Deepseek V4-pro tokens would have cost more than resold Opus 4.8 tokens.

You mean it's functionally as if American tokens are being price dumped in China and Chinese model providers are being forced to compete with that and innovate? So many delicious layers of irony, lol :-P

by ammo166217 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

China also have trust issue with American companies. Most of State-owned companies will not use those services even if they can directly access them.

by nekusar16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

And? The US feds wont allow even local Qwen or Deepseek models either. "Evul godless commies" or some such nonsense.

by ValentineC15 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

If other providers can match Deepseek's first party prices, that probably means that the economics for running inferencing work out for them.

by ffsm815 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Urm, no? I man they did cut prices by 75% that part is true - but they reduced a starting price that was below sonnet.

Also it's a open weight model, doing that is impossible long term because the real price will be set by the other model providers, who priced it around 60% of sonnet inference cost. Had to look that up though, so that's today's pricing.

by furyofantares14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Is there a contradiction here? If resold Opus tokens are sold at a 93% discount, you can be a lot cheaper than Sonnet while also a lot more expensive than resold Opus tokens.

by ffsm812 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I see, After rereading the comment I was responding to I realized I probably misread/misinterpreted what they wanted to convey.

I think there isn't a contradiction and I was just confused. The price may have been discounted only to get below the price point of opus resellers. I do not have enough information on that to make any clear determination on that topic.

by i2km11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It's somewhat difficult to have any sympathy for Anthropic here. They're entirely responsible for selling tokens at below cost, with the age-old bait-and-switch tactic.

If they weren't doing so, then these Chinese resellers wouldn't be viable. Radical idea, but how about they actually charge a viable price, even on subscription plans?

by jadar16 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

If resold Anthropic tokens undercut even the at-cost open-weight model tokens, because they're reselling subsidized subscription tokens, then you'd have to start selling open-weight model tokens at a loss in order to match them.

by epolanski2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Also, wouldn't that claim only hold in China?

I'm an European and I'm not using those proxys the article describes.