The conversation

aenisHNSource author
Business & incomeExperience excerpt · English

Edit: ok, if they charged 20k per month per seat I'd also start benchmarking the alternatives and …

… Edit: ok, if they charged 20k per month per seat I'd also start benchmarking the alternatives and local models, but for my business case, running a 700M budget, Claude brings disproportionate benefis, not just in time saved in developer costs, but also faster shipping times, reduced friction between various product and business teams, and so on. For the first time we generally say 'yes' to whichever frivolities our product teams come up with, and thats a nice feeling.

Original discussionClaude Opus 4.7 costs 20–30% more per session498 source comments · at import
3

What was this responding to?

Parent context · original excerpt

TA
tabbottHN

I find it interesting that folks are so focused on cost for AI models. Human time spent redirecting AI coding agents towards better strategies and reviewing work, remains dramatically more expensive than the token cost for AI coding, for anything other than hobby work (where you're not paying for the human labor). $200/month is an expensive hobby, but it's negligible as a business expense; SalesForce licenses cost far more. The key question is how well it a given model does the work, which is a lot harder to measure. But I think token costs are still an order of magnitude below the point where a US-based developer using AI for coding should be asking questions about price; at current price points, the cost/benefit question is dominated by what makes the best use of your limited time as an engineer.

Full original

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 3

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

WG
wg0HN

Who's going to review that output for accuracy? We'll leave performance and security as unnecessary luxuries in this age and time. In my experience, even Claude 4.6's output can't be trusted blindly it'll write flawed code and would write tests that would be testing that flawed code giving false sense of confidence and accomplishment only to be revealed upon closer inspection later. Additionally - it's age old known fact that code is always easier to write (even prior to AI) but is always tenfold difficult to read and understand (even if you were the original author yourself) so I'm not so sure this much generative output from probabilistic models would have been so flawless that nobody needs to read and understand that code. Too good to be true.

Full original
DA
davebrenHN

You copied two human coded native apps into a vibe coded react app? If the vibe coding is so good why wouldn't you keep the native apps and vibe code on top of them instead of spending a bunch of money to reach feature parity with a worse version?

Full original
TR
truetravellerHN

Your estimate of "6-7 month project for a 9 FTE team" was probably waaay off. I mean, what is this mobile app? Without even seeing your app, I would say 2 months TOPS with 2 devs. So, the "AI" version is really not that much better, and probably even worse.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.