Comment by outside1234
17 hours ago
The thing they are really wildly behind on is a business model. They are losing wild amounts of money per customer and it is hard to see how the competitive situation is going to allow them to fix that.
17 hours ago
The thing they are really wildly behind on is a business model. They are losing wild amounts of money per customer and it is hard to see how the competitive situation is going to allow them to fix that.
Given the scaling hurdles Claude Code / Opus is having, those Anthropic customers might leave to Codex. I'm _this_ close.
Codex is pretty good. Its friction to switch but I think it’s sensible being across multiple AI toolchains.
No friction in switching coding models.
Pi mono.
Nuff said
1 reply →
Thing is, if you're using Codex, you're supporting Sam Altman and the idea of Sam Altmans, in the same way that if you use X or buy a Tesla, you're supporting Elon Musk and the idea of Elon Musks. That's a pretty big tax to factor into the usage of such products. If you even got 5% better coding results, would that make up for the future they're trying to build?
6 replies →
I'm getting pretty close too, but I wouldn't switch to Codex I'd switch to one of the open agents that can use any backing LLM. My reasoning is that if I'm willing to pay the cost of the small changes in usage, I might as well switch to an open source agent that I can add my own convenience features to, like remote sessions and phone-based operation.
Codex is open source and allows any model to be configured.
5 replies →
What would be subscription customers, no? Rather than Bedrock or per-api customers? Many of the companies running on Bedrock or by-use have per day limits above the max monthly subscription costs.