Shkreli explains that Bloomberg's single, high price point creates a trap. They cannot launch resource-intensive features, like on-demand AI analysis, because it would disrupt the "all-you-can-eat" model and require a separate, costly add-on that alienates existing customers.
Related Insights
AI products with a Product-Led Growth motion face a fundamental flaw in their unit economics. Customers expect predictable SaaS-like pricing (e.g., $20/month), but the company's costs are usage-based. This creates an inverse relationship where higher user engagement leads directly to lower or negative margins.
Standard SaaS pricing fails for agentic products because high usage becomes a cost center. Avoid the trap of profiting from non-use. Instead, implement a hybrid model with a fixed base and usage-based overages, or, ideally, tie pricing directly to measurable outcomes generated by the AI.
The dominant per-user-per-month SaaS business model is becoming obsolete for AI-native companies. The new standard is consumption or outcome-based pricing. Customers will pay for the specific task an AI completes or the value it generates, not for a seat license, fundamentally changing how software is sold.
OpenAI Chair Bret Taylor argues that the biggest hurdle for established software companies isn't adopting AI technology, but disrupting their own business models. Moving from per-seat licenses to the outcome-based pricing that agents enable is a more profound and difficult challenge.
Anthropic is preventing users from leveraging its cheap consumer subscription for heavy, API-like usage. This move highlights the unsustainable economics of flat-rate pricing for a variable, high-cost resource like AI compute. The market is maturing from a growth-focused to a unit-economics-focused phase.
Switching a usage-based AI product to an unlimited SaaS model eliminates budget as a barrier, driving deep adoption. The new bottleneck becomes the client's time to process the AI's output, creating an opportunity to build features that automate this "last mile" of work.
Major AI players treat the market as a zero-sum, "winner-take-all" game. This triggers a prisoner's dilemma where each firm is incentivized to offer subsidized, unlimited-use pricing to gain market share, leading to a race to the bottom that destroys profitability for the entire sector and squeezes out smaller players.
In the age of AI, software is shifting from a tool that assists humans to an agent that completes tasks. The pricing model should reflect this. Instead of a subscription for access (a license), charge for the value created when the AI successfully achieves a business outcome.
The shift to usage-based pricing for AI tools isn't just a revenue growth strategy. Enterprise vendors are adopting it to offset their own escalating cloud infrastructure costs, which scale directly with customer usage, thereby protecting their profit margins from their own suppliers.
AI startups often use traditional per-seat pricing to simplify purchasing for enterprise buyers. The CEO of Legora admits this is suboptimal for the vendor, as high LLM costs from power users can destroy margins. The shift to a more logical consumption-based model is currently blocked by the buyer's operational readiness, not the vendor's preference.
