“To make matters worse, both OpenAI and Anthropic are speeding as fast as they can toward IPO — which means that both will have to start looking like real companies, which means both will, inevitably, start charging their customers more and very likely moving the vast majority of them to token-based billing and either kill or vastly limit their subsidized subscriptions.”
Our reading:
Because OpenAI and Anthropic are racing toward IPOs and will have to look like real companies, both will inevitably start charging customers more, and will very likely move the vast majority of customers to token-based billing and either kill or vastly limit their subsidized subscriptions.
Assessment: Unresolved
What happened
Did the forecast come true?
Outcome: Unresolved
We checked, and the evidence so far doesn’t settle it.
Judged on a plain reading. They named no measure, so we used the reading a typical informed reader would take. It is spelled out under “How we judged it”.
Evidence up to . Checked .
Why
His firm prediction is that OpenAI and Anthropic will both start charging customers more. He gave no deadline. He hedged the token-billing and subscription-cut parts as 'very likely', so the contract does not require them. Both companies were moving toward an IPO: Anthropic filed an S-1 on 2026-10-26, and OpenAI's IPO was expected in early 2027 (e2). On 2026-06-15, a secondary summary reported that Anthropic had paused a planned billing change for Agent SDK usage and that subscription limits were unchanged (e1). That is not a price rise. No evidence item shows either company raising the list price or per-token rate of an existing product between 2026-06-08 and 2026-10-28. With no deadline, the lack of a rise so far does not make the forecast wrong. The early-support rule has not been met, so the forecast stays open.
Caveats
- Several pricing sources could not be read (HTTP 403, 410 and 429 errors), including an OpenAI page on Codex pricing for teams. A price rise could have been missed.
- One secondary source said ChatGPT Plus rose to $24 from June 15, 2026. It could not be read or checked, and other sources list $20.
- The contract does not count tighter usage limits at the same price as a price rise. The evidence does not show whether such changes happened, and some readers could call them charging more.
- e1 is a secondary summary, not Anthropic's own notice.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: Digital Applied,
Nothing changes for now: those surfaces continue drawing from your Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise subscription limits exactly as before, there is no credit to claim, and your subscription limits are unchanged.
Why it matters: Anthropic dropped a planned move of agent usage to API-rate billing a week after the post. This is not a price rise. Because the forecast has no deadline, it does not contradict it either.
- Publisher
- Digital Applied
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- About events on
- Published
Context only: Yahoo Finance,
Anthropic's chief rival, OpenAI (OPAI.PVT), meanwhile, is expected to hold off on its own much-anticipated IPO until early 2027.
Why it matters: Shows both companies on the IPO path he described: Anthropic filed an S-1, and OpenAI's IPO is expected in early 2027. This is background, not a price change.
- Publisher
- Yahoo Finance
- Kind of source
- News report
- About events on
- Published
How we judged it
- Kind of claim
- Forecast
- Deadline
- None given. We don’t add one.
Conditions
- the price increase is stated as inevitable (their words)
- the billing shift and subscription cuts are 'very likely' (their words)
- the vast majority of customers (their words)
Where we had to interpret
- The firm commitment is only that both companies will start charging customers more. The billing shift and the subscription cuts are marked 'very likely', so they are hedged. They are described in the commentary but are not required for support.
- The IPO race is the stated reason, not a condition. Support does not require proof that the IPO caused any price rise.
- Plain reading of 'charging more': each company raises the price customers pay for an existing paid product after the post. That means a higher list price for an existing subscription tier, or a higher per-token rate for the same model. A new, more expensive tier is not a rise for existing customers. Cutting usage limits at the same price is an arguable effective rise, but it is not counted on its…
Right if: After 2026-06-08, both OpenAI and Anthropic each raise the price customers pay for an existing paid product, such as a subscription list price or a per-token rate for the same model.
Wrong if: With no deadline, no single event contradicts the forecast. It could only be judged false if one or both companies plainly never raised prices over a long period after reaching IPO. No such period has passed.
We wrote this test after the outcome was known.
What would settle it
A dated company announcement, pricing-page change or reliable news report showing that OpenAI and Anthropic each raised the list price or per-token rate of an existing product after 2026-06-08.
We found 28 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Where's Your Ed At, AI Is Slowing Down, paragraph 62.
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-28. The post may have been edited after 2026-06-08.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Where's Your Ed At, AI Is Slowing Down
To make matters worse, both OpenAI and Anthropic are speeding as fast as they can toward IPO — which means that both will have to start looking like real companies, which means both will, inevitably, start charging their customers more and very likely moving the vast majority of them to token-based billing and either kill or vastly limit their subsidized subscriptions.
- Where
- paragraph 62
- Published
- 2026-06-08
- We read it
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Versions
- Current: Unresolved. Evidence up to 2026-10-28.
What happened to this record
PublishedBy us
Published after both AI reviews and the final check passed.
Held backBy us
A reviewer said our test wasn’t fair to what was actually said.