← Back to context Comment by modeless 3 days ago Clearly this model will be irrelevant by Jan. 2027, why would Google even bother to say this? 4 comments modeless Reply urams 3 days ago It's basically a "if we really have to support this for a long time, we want to be compensated for that" pricing strategy. It's about long term maintenance cost being greater _because_ it will be irrelevant. kromokromo 3 days ago Its probably just a corporate symptom, weird stuff like this happens in messy large orgs. quaintdev 3 days ago Maybe they know something we don't. What if all frontier lab do this? Maybe this is actual cost of running these llm. seunosewa 3 days ago They want to maintain the perception that Flash is worth $7.5/mot, so they can charge more for the next one.
urams 3 days ago It's basically a "if we really have to support this for a long time, we want to be compensated for that" pricing strategy. It's about long term maintenance cost being greater _because_ it will be irrelevant.
kromokromo 3 days ago Its probably just a corporate symptom, weird stuff like this happens in messy large orgs.
quaintdev 3 days ago Maybe they know something we don't. What if all frontier lab do this? Maybe this is actual cost of running these llm.
seunosewa 3 days ago They want to maintain the perception that Flash is worth $7.5/mot, so they can charge more for the next one.
It's basically a "if we really have to support this for a long time, we want to be compensated for that" pricing strategy. It's about long term maintenance cost being greater _because_ it will be irrelevant.
Its probably just a corporate symptom, weird stuff like this happens in messy large orgs.
Maybe they know something we don't. What if all frontier lab do this? Maybe this is actual cost of running these llm.
They want to maintain the perception that Flash is worth $7.5/mot, so they can charge more for the next one.