I think the reason is that after all the benchmark comparisons, anthropic models still perform much more reliably and better in day to day use. Every day now there is a new supposedly fable level model that then somehow completely vanishes in a couple of days. While fable is still the best model and if only it were cheaper less people would be hating I suppose.

This really reminds of the spec comparison obsession android users had in the 2010s. Every 6months an 'iPhone killer' was released, but they were only ever superior in total isolation.

the credibility of using vercel data - means the journos were lazy.

vercel is mostly used by the 'next.js' kids - so that ain't gonna paint the full picture.

again vercel is just reselling aws services at high marked up prices - so people paying for vercel again are most likely to pay for anthropic models. though we know models are a commodity at this point - without major differentiation.

what a lazy analysis.

Nope, Apple delivers the best hardware out there, Anthropic doesn't, they dumb dound, nerf it, put in constraints.

Yes, Apple provides a closed ecosystem, this isn't news. Anthropic is manufacturing the closed ecosystem themselves now, trying to capture via regulation.

Great, can we have thought traces back yet?

My hot take: the only people willing to pay for LLMs are using it for code generation, and they prefer Claude.

They do seem to have done a "better" job of marketing

But are disappointing like Apple for being a "closed" ecosystem

> Apple of AI

Except Apple does not really innovate. They just polish until it looks shiny.

Just look at the upcoming flip phones, but the examples are numerous.