Back to News
Advertisement

Tell HN: OpenAI brings back 5 hour limit for plus and business standard users

sspwa4 about 3 hours ago 120 comments

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

In case you're wondering why the limits behave so very different from last week. Also: this makes limit resets kind woth significantly less.
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

90% Positive

Analyzed from 2429 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#more#going#prices#limit#models#better#model#window#tokens#openai

Discussion (120 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

paxysabout 2 hours ago
People should realize by now that they aren't giving out thousands of dollars worth of compute in a $20 subscription out of the goodness of their hearts. The base level plans aren't meant for any kind of serious work beyond the equivalent of Google searches. At best treat it like a trial.
solenoid0937about 2 hours ago
I hope everyone recognized the cheap tokens as a transparent ploy to gain more users before jacking up prices. This was obvious from day one.
skybrianabout 2 hours ago
Your cheap cynicism makes OpenAI's lower prices sound like a reason to avoid using them, but that's backwards! It's a better strategy to use them now while prices are low and switch later if necessary. Nobody knows who will have the best prices later, so better to decide later.
NewJazz35 minutes ago
Only if switching costs are low. If you are investing in the platform and integrating deeply, then planning to switch may not be a good plan.
cjabout 2 hours ago
It’s good to be aware when you’re buying something that’s subsidized. No need to downplay the importance of awareness.
fnyabout 2 hours ago
I hope everyone recognizes they aim to make you dependent on their intelligence rather than your own.
gruezabout 2 hours ago
But there's open models that are (pessimistically) 1 year behind? It's not like if openai decided to rugpull everyone, we'd be going back to writing code by hand and all the developers who forgot how to fizzbuzz would be screwed.
zuluxabout 2 hours ago
There's an escape valve: I've had Claude stand-up AI-enabled features in my app, so we're much less dependent on Claude itself. The app uses cheap API calls to check code quality and run other "lessons learned" sweeps. Some of these become regular code in the end as well.
catchnear4321about 2 hours ago
I reject your intelligence and substitute my own?
TuxSHabout 1 hour ago
It was obvious indeed, but damn does it feel good to have ridden the May 25 - Aug. 26 gravy train.

Now, let's see how the Anthropic IPO goes.

edoceoabout 1 hour ago
I'm going to predict: soft, below first-trade price at 180d from IPO date.
flirabout 2 hours ago
Or more efficient models/faster hardware close the gap between here and profitability.

I wouldn't be surprised if every $10 you add to the subscription cost halves your audience.

mrweaselabout 1 hour ago
That boils down to who the customers for ChatGPT really are. $10 isn't going to make a difference for those who already pay, because they are basically pro-consumers. OpenAI might deliver enterprise solutions for large companies, but those deals are besides the per month subscriptions on the website.

For ChatGPT I really only see two customer groups, pro-consumer and small and medium enterprise. The entry level are just going to use Google/Gemini for the most part, or some ad supported ChatGPT tier. There's no price low enough to make the entry level, average consumer pay for an AI service. These are people who will not pay for search, email and social media. They only pay for streaming because there's no way around it.

password54321about 2 hours ago
It is really about data. The endgame is not about hoping devs give them money.
mrweaselabout 1 hour ago
What are they going to do with that data? Is it ads again?
copperxabout 2 hours ago
More data isn't helping much, if Astra is any indication.
madaxe_againabout 2 hours ago
Or to just give users enough usage to find categories in which it is useful for them.

I pay the $200/mo., and don’t regret it for an instant - I have a project manager, an executive assistant, a business analyst, a software developer and an international accountant, for an absolute song.

dgellowabout 1 hour ago
you’re using an LLM as your international accountant? And brag about it online? That’s definitely a choice
brazukadevabout 2 hours ago
As long as there is no path to profitability going from subsidized to fully paid tokens we are making them lose money.
tehjokerabout 2 hours ago
This is not entirely true, you are costing them in the short run, but are growing your dependence on their product and feeding them training data.

Their goal is to create AGI and replace humans with something resembling the plot of Horizon Zero Dawn and its sequel but more extreme.

geraldwhenabout 2 hours ago
They won’t be able to. Open models exist and run on a Mac you can buy now or in October.
howdareme9about 2 hours ago
please point me to an open model, that matches astra even on low reasoning, and runs on a mac
apparentabout 2 hours ago
The audience for this sort of thing is currently quite limited. It may grow more in the future, especially if prices get out of control, but for now, it's a relatively small subset of people.
esskayabout 2 hours ago
Sorry but this is a pretty delusional take. No, you cant run the same level or even close to that level of model on a mac, not even on a 512gb studio. You can run good models sure, but not models anywhere close to the capabilities of these ones yet, despite what idiots on Twitter keep spouting.
lerosabout 1 hour ago
The $100 plans are plenty for me to use nearly all day. I'm using between $1500-3000 worth of tokens a month via those plans.

I definitely see the pricing model. I can afford $100, maybe $200, but not $3000.

globular-toast20 minutes ago
They must have realised by now what they are selling is addictive. It's pretty normal for drug dealers and the like to give people introductory prices then hike once dependence kicks in.
rfgplkabout 1 hour ago
> People should realize by now that they aren't giving out thousands of dollars worth of compute in a $20 subscription out of the goodness of their hearts. The base level plans aren't meant for any kind of serious work beyond the equivalent of Google searches. At best treat it like a trial.

I've said this countless times already; if OpenAI or Anthropic were serious about world domination they would offer an infinite $500 to $1000/month tier subscription. No limits; eat as much as you'd like buffet. Maybe limit concurrent connection (say 10 conns max in parallel) to limit abuse. This would actually allow regular users to run 24/7 agentic loops, massively speeding up deployment. Win win for everyone.

dwaite32 minutes ago
The business model works by over provisioning, which means you actually do want to cap the people who will attempt fully utilize the service.

Once you know someone is going to use 100% of the service rather than 25%, you have to charge them full price. That's why you see them fail over to API pricing.

worldsaviorabout 2 hours ago
I thought it was always about us being the RL. We pay less because they use our usage to train their models.
surgical_fire12 minutes ago
The same can be said of the $200 plan.
fennecbuttabout 1 hour ago
Disagree, not for serious work if you're a developer aka requiring loads of iterations tool calls etc. But for other tasks it's relatively fine.
kraftmanabout 2 hours ago
Is it not due to the all the user data they are gathering?
j3th9n40 minutes ago
one word, localmodels
add-sub-mul-divabout 2 hours ago
I can't believe people are letting themselves be taken for a ride so shortly after seeing what happened with streaming subscriptions.
wattyabout 3 hours ago
Session limits are obnoxious and make Codex much less useful for me. I tend to code in spurts when I find some time and the $20 weekly limit was reasonable for my side projects.

I'm now hitting the session limits which means I can either purchase another plan, upgrade, or move off of Codex.

jstummbilligabout 2 hours ago
The equivalent alternative is not "no hourly limits", it's simply less overall weekly allowance for Plus users, or higher prices overall. It's a way to balance a scarce resource, and maybe the least frustrating one?

People have a fair chance to learn resource management in 5 hour chunks, while not being limited to silly models, and burning through all tokens in the first hour of the week. Seems mostly good.

ignoramousabout 2 hours ago
> Seems mostly good

What's not good for the customer is the constant change of rules. It is bait & switch.

jstummbillig19 minutes ago
The rules are not changing by chance. People want to use the new model. Rules are adjusted to better meet demand.

People want things to be better more than they want things to not change. That's a good thing!

CSMastermindabout 2 hours ago
Once they capature enough marketshare prices and restrictions are both going to skyrocket. The difference between the subscription usage and API pricing are stark.
jamesrisoabout 2 hours ago
This is interesting to think about. There's so much competition among the frontier labs and from outside via open source it just doesn't seem obvious to me they could maintain elevated prices
fwlr8 minutes ago
There is so much competition among frontier labs, but it is a competition to see who can burn the biggest pile of cash. Once your competitors flame out, they are gone, and you are free to raise prices. Think WalMart/Uber tactics.
drob518about 2 hours ago
You’re going to get multiple tiers (as we already are). You’re always going to pay top dollar for frontier models, but you’re going to find things highly discounted if you’re willing to move off the frontier. See GLM 5.3 Flash, for instance.
piloto_ciegoabout 2 hours ago
It's just doomer nonsense to me.

On the internet you have 4 possible outcomes.

Say things are going to suck and they suck. You look brilliant.

Say things are going to suck, and they don't suck. Nobody cares because it doesn't suck.

Say things are going to be good, and they're good. A few attaboys for getting it right, but nobody cares.

Say things are going to be good, and they suck. You look like a moron.

Because of negativity bias everyone is leaning towards predicting DOOOOOOOOOOM. People aren't even consciously doing this, it's just a factor of the medium, because looking like a moron hurts way more than a few attaboys.

I think in about a year, we're going to see a scad of these ASICS like chat jimmy running year old models on dedicated hardware. Imagine racks and racks full of Astra but running at 15,000 tokens a second or whatever? Imagine swarms of them running the models we have today essentially for "free." That's where we're going to be. The bottleneck will be production, tbh, not demand.

"Hey Astra-Silicon, solve the Goldbach Conjecture!" Sure, it might take a few hours and be totally un-readable to a human being, but the 6m lines of Lean or whatever will be correct. Then what? What can we start doing then?

satvikpendemabout 2 hours ago
Pascal's AI, I see. But yes, social media algorithms and the Internet in general have made people realize doomerism is what gets the clicks and views.
missingcoloursabout 1 hour ago
Doesn't seem to have incentivized cryptocurrency enthusiasts away from being in that last category for years...
pinkmuffinereabout 2 hours ago
Ya, setting aside any judgement about what's "right", this strategy doesn't seem profitable. There's no real moat between one model/provider to another, switching is relatively easy. I don't understand how this is supposed to work for them.

It strikes me as similar to UPS / USPS / Fedex -- everyone uses the mail, and they mostly use whichever is cheapest for their requirements. I don't think there's much loyalty to specific services, and people are happy to switch between the options

sidrag22about 2 hours ago
just dont fall in love with goofy memory style features and its likely gonna be fairly easy to just plug and play whatever model for a ton of use cases.

I dont see a lot of love for weird memory like features on HN, but on provider subreddits its constantly talked about.

Den_VRabout 2 hours ago
It should seem obvious they are seeking governmental intervention to limit “unaligned, or unsafe” alternatives.
KronisLVabout 2 hours ago
This would need to be a collusion across most of the providers (which I think is likely to happen) otherwise OpenAI would get ditched for Anthropic or vice versa, depending on who raises the prices more. If it happens across the board then enterprises that can use Chinese models won’t have that many options but to pay up.
andybakabout 1 hour ago
Where's the moat? You can only truly "capture market share" if there's lock-in and no competition.
johnnyApplePRNGabout 2 hours ago
That's the fever-dream that OpenAI et al is fraudulently marketing to their investors I suspect, yes.
minimaxirabout 3 hours ago
In hindsight, this makes more sense with the release of Astra. The $100/mo is now a more compelling upsell.
programmarchyabout 3 hours ago
Yep, worked on me...
mshabout 2 hours ago
I went another way and signed up for a opencode go subscription on the side.
ronsorabout 2 hours ago
Opencode Go's value is pretty poor these days. It was better a month or two ago.
quietsegfaultabout 2 hours ago
Can you talk more about what changed in the last two months? I use open router for when I run out of limits, and I’ve done better than buying an additional sub for my uses. I thought about looking at a more niche player, but it’s not a priority for me yet.
esafakabout 2 hours ago
What changed, increased quantization and reduced context windows?
redox99about 2 hours ago
5h limits are awful. It means it is literally unable to complete a large task.

A better approach if they want to balance the load is having higher usage or lower usage consumption at different times of day.

nicceabout 2 hours ago
5h limit is gone with one prompt with Sol or Astra with high or higher thinking.
pkulakabout 2 hours ago
So use the api? You’re not getting a giant discount for nothing. The 5-hour limit is great for all my personal stuff.
redox99about 2 hours ago
I use the $100 which currently doesn't have the 5h limit.

The 5h limit hurts the most on the $20 plan because the limit is already very small (5h is ~15% of your weekly).

robotswantdataabout 2 hours ago
This is very fair. Compared to Claude the Codex limits are much better and smarter model.
ttulabout 2 hours ago
My goodness, the complaining... Just get all your devs a $200 ChatGPT Pro (20x) plan. Yes, you lose the "team" component, but you gain so much more. And what's $200 against the salary of a good developer? It's absolutely inconsequential, even in far cheaper non-US salary regimes.
Synthetic734641 minutes ago
Devs are already on an enterprise plan. I think the people complaining are the personal use folks
alpinemanabout 1 hour ago
Sam, is that you?
estebarbabout 2 hours ago
I dislike this approach. In my opinion it is much useful a 1x/2x billing based on hour like Deepseek does. Being unable to use it at the hours I need it makes me want to remove the service, not upgrading it.
Gurioabout 2 hours ago
This is one of the reasons I’ve built a resident daemon on top a local CC/codex. 5h sessions is a [lazy] way to shift the scaling responsibility onto a user, so they are staying with us for a while
almogabout 2 hours ago
Previous discussion (from 13 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49432879
reenorapabout 2 hours ago
How is 5 hrs being measured and over what time period?
dwaite18 minutes ago
it is a window that starts with usage and continues for five hours.

When I was doing an evaluation using a lower paid tier of Claude, I would have a service send a "hello" ping 4 hours before I started my work day, to reduce my first work-hours session window to 1 hour.

The goal was to have this be more of a "thinking" session for planning the next larger block of work, and then being able to use a lower cost model for implementation.

That said, if your 5 hour window quota is 15% of your weekly quota, this means you can be using 30% or more a day of the weekly quota.

gowthamgts12about 2 hours ago
when you send your first message, the timer will start.
colechristensenabout 2 hours ago
In all of them I've seen it's a window that starts when you haven't been using it in a while and begin work OR when your previous window expired. The window starts with a set number of tokens and cuts you off when they're used, it is fully reset at the end of the window (it's not a sliding window).

When you haven't used any tokens for an extended amount of time it reverts to the point where whenever you send your first token is when the window begins.

ipdashcabout 1 hour ago
Hm, it seems like it'd make sense to automate a script to send one small prompt at, say, 7 or 8am so that you get your reset around noon instead of having to wait until 5h or more into the workday.

I never quite understood why they picked 5h, it seems oddly arbitrary

d1sxeyesabout 1 hour ago
Some third party harnesses allow you to do this, definitely makes sense.
Advertisement
indigodaddyabout 2 hours ago
What also sucks is your weekly reset does not also reset your 5 hourly. A bit like a slap in the face..
andybakabout 1 hour ago
Oh that's just sloppy of them.
jeanmichelselliabout 2 hours ago
Clearly, the prices and limitations will increase with time if they don't find an efficient way to perform training and inference of LLMs. It would be great to see those issues being seriously addressed and, eventually, being fixed for good. THAT would definitely make an important and practical difference. Not only economically but also scientifically.
parineumabout 2 hours ago
I always wonder where the people are who continually claim that this whole thing is already profitable are when prices are increased or services cut.
alastair1646about 1 hour ago
I think the people that are saying that mean that the inference is massively profitable. From what I've seen, the margins are between 50 and 90% on an API call. It's the training that's very, very expensive!

As far as I understand, for both OpenAI and Anthropic, currently the majority of their GPUs are being used for training, with only a smaller portion being used for actual customer serving.

drob518about 2 hours ago
I’ve not heard anyone say that the whole thing is profitable. Companies like Anthropic have said that inference is profitable, but I assume that’s only on a steady state basis, which nobody in the industry has ever reached at this point. As far as I know, everyone is still burning cash with data center buildouts and overall training costs.
jonpurdyabout 2 hours ago
Controversial take but this works better for me than just the weekly limit. I have about 1-2 hours of sustained focus per 5 hour period so if I run out of tokens then I can take a break and start again in a few hours. Or just use the top ups that I’ve paid for in case I want to push through.

Having just the weekly limit meant I could blow through too much within the first couple of days. Fortunately, resets were raining down during that time.

(I know I could just vibe code a tracker that splits up my usage into arbitrary periods and lets me know when to take a break. Maybe if they remove the 5-hour limit again.)

pxxabout 2 hours ago
Wait, what? Hasn't this been the case for more than a week? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49432879
nullbioabout 2 hours ago
I think it's reasonable for the Plus plans to have this. If you're doing any serious work you should be on the Pro plan. If you're a casual user, 5 hours is more than plenty.
xqcgrek2about 2 hours ago
OpenAI must be under a lot of pressure to make the books balanced. A bleak sign for Anthropic's IPO and the stock market.
browningstreetabout 2 hours ago
Codex pharming on X should take a dip…
installiskeyconabout 3 hours ago
KARIBIK
PaywallBusterabout 3 hours ago
This allows users to pace their subscription usage to last the whole week.

I've had few weekends where I spend the full week credits over night then have nothing to do for a week

recursiveabout 2 hours ago
It might be good to have at least two hobbies.
wrkronmillerabout 3 hours ago
They could make this opt-in or opt-out