I think the strategy you're suggesting is: "We lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume!"
If the resellers down the chain were purchasing your shoes for less then your cost, would you still be happy?
Say the resellers were abusing an 80% discount coupon. Anthropic is basically closing a 95% discount coupon that was being abused.
If OpenClaw users were paying the API rate, your strategy could make more sense.
The reason Anthropic is subsidizing inference is because they are trying to capture users (marketshare). However the acquisition costs for a single OpenClaw user is much higher. And OpenClaw users are less likely to convert into profitable users later.
---
In addition, there is a supply bottleneck. Currently Anthropic is having trouble servicing all the demand due to a shortage of GPU's. And in the current market it is impossible to get more GPU's (or at least prohibitively expensive).
Anthropic (and all other AI companies) also need GPU's to stay competitive: GPU's are needed to train better models. So you could view it as Anthropic has decided instead of subsidizing nonprofitable OpenClaw users, it is better to repurpose that GPU for internal R&D instead.
How come you don't show the realtime transcription... in realtime?
I think it would make it feel even faster.
> the UX difference between streaming and offline STT is night and day. Words appearing while you're still talking completely changes the feedback loop. You catch errors in real time, you can adjust what you're saying mid-sentence, and the whole thing feels more natural. Going back to "record then wait" feels broken after that.
I think realtime transcription hurts the UX of polishing what's said worse. In FreeFlow the output of the transcription is fed to an LLM to polish in context of where the text is being injected. This way we can go beyond naive transcription.
FreeFlow already feels extremely fast and text being typed as I dictate is distracting especially if the polishing phase edits it.
That said, FreeFlow is open source for exactly this reason, everyone will have their own preference. If you would like to turn this behavior into a configurable preference, we'd happily accept a pull request.
If the resellers down the chain were purchasing your shoes for less then your cost, would you still be happy?
Say the resellers were abusing an 80% discount coupon. Anthropic is basically closing a 95% discount coupon that was being abused.
If OpenClaw users were paying the API rate, your strategy could make more sense.
The reason Anthropic is subsidizing inference is because they are trying to capture users (marketshare). However the acquisition costs for a single OpenClaw user is much higher. And OpenClaw users are less likely to convert into profitable users later.
---
In addition, there is a supply bottleneck. Currently Anthropic is having trouble servicing all the demand due to a shortage of GPU's. And in the current market it is impossible to get more GPU's (or at least prohibitively expensive).
Anthropic (and all other AI companies) also need GPU's to stay competitive: GPU's are needed to train better models. So you could view it as Anthropic has decided instead of subsidizing nonprofitable OpenClaw users, it is better to repurpose that GPU for internal R&D instead.
reply