订阅额度腰斩后，用户质疑 OpenAI 的算力困境与产品方向
OpenAI 砍了订阅额度还说是效率提升，作者对比 Opus 5.5 后觉得 Claude 更香，Anthropic 趁机拉人，这波分析挺扎心的。
OpenAI 暂停了 $200 订阅的新注册，随后将 $200 档及所有套餐的使用额度近乎减半，并推出 GPT 6.1 Sol 作为高效替代方案。作者认为算力紧张是根本原因，但 OpenAI 把额度下调包装成"效率提升"，沟通方式令人失望。Dev Day 的主打产品 always-on agent 也未获认可，作者认为 Opus 5.5 在与 GPT 6.1 的直接对比中更胜一筹，Anthropic 借机在 IPO 前吸引用户回流 Claude。
Some thoughts regarding the current satiation with OpenAI. OpenAI is clearly in a difficult position right now, especially as compute capacity is becoming an increasingly serious problem. We recently saw new sign-ups for the $200 subscription temporarily suspended. Shortly afterward came the major blow: usage rates were effectively cut in half across the $200 plan and all the other plans, with GPT 6.1 Sol introduced as a highly efficient alternative to compensate.
The usage allowances were generous at first, but inference was slow. It has since become faster, but it still has a way to go. Personally, I still prefer GPT 6 Astra on Medium, but with the reduced subscription limits, I will soon be unable to use it as much as I normally do. Worse still, I won’t be able to use future top-tier models in the Astra family to the same extent either. I don’t think this is down to malice on OpenAI’s part, but simply to how severe its compute constraints have become.
Somewhat bafflingly, the headline announcement at Dev Day was the always-on agent, which I have yet to find particularly compelling. That makes it easy for Anthropic to position itself as the appealing alternative right now.
I still consider Opus 5.5 the better model, particularly when compared directly with GPT 6.1. With Fable 5.5 due to be released soon, OpenAI is under even more pressure to respond. Honestly, I no longer understand OpenAI’s vision.
By reducing its subscription allowances, OpenAI has made it easy for Anthropic to present itself as the better alternative and draw users back to Claude ahead of Anthropic’s IPO. OpenAI has done itself a real disservice.
OpenAI’s recent communication has also been far from good. Instead of speaking plainly about the problems, it framed the reduction in weekly usage limits as an efficiency improvement, as though users were actually getting more than before. I honestly don’t believe that. Which leaves me wondering: Quo vadis, OpenAI?
