Excusing everything else that u/bastawhiz said[0]; the obvious fact here is that Claude, OpenAI, Gemini et al. are quite literally burning through 100's of billions of dollars and selling it back to you for pennies on the dollar in the hopes that they get to be the only one left.
If I spend $10 growing Oranges and sell them to you for $1; then of course it's more expensive for you to do the growing.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. These models will become more expensive over time, it's functionally impossible for them not to, they just want to capture the market before they have to stop selling at a huge loss.
Also, there a good technical reasons for inference being much more efficient at scale.
But that's not the point I'm making. (or, it kind of is, but it's more high level than that).
They're running spot and preemptible GPU instances (60-80% cheaper than on-demand), paying wholesale industrial electricity rates, and running at multi-tenant utilisation densities that make your MacBook look like a bonfire. Of course they're not individually loss-making on inference, they're aggregating cheap commodity compute and skimming a margin, and on paper that's what makes it seem like a good idea, certainly not a loss leader right?
But zoom out a bit; the entire stack is swimming in VC money. OpenRouter itself just raised at a $1.3B valuation backed by a16z. The Chinese models that now account for 36% of all tokens routed through the platform (DeepSeek, Qwen) are priced the way they are because Beijing-adjacent capital has decided market share matters more than margin right now.
So yes, technically no single party is "throwing money away" on each token; they're just all simultaneously subsidising different parts of the stack for strategic reasons. The floor price you're seeing isn't a stable equilibrium, it's a pile of investor money that hasn't entirely finished burning yet.
All that says is that it gets more expensive in the future as competitors exit the market and sustainability becomes important. That’s why Uber and Lyft were so cheap until they killed taxis. One major difference of course is that some models will remain largely good enough and the incremental cost of running will keep dropping to 0 over time since the hardware needed doesn’t get more expensive and is already purchased.
I only object to taking current prices as if they are perpetual prices.
If the arms race stopped tomorrow the current price pays for the inference.
Amazon were losing money, they were losing money because were growing and spent all of their cash flow on growth. It wasn't merely regarded as a hopelessly unprofitable business, if was regarded as potentially fraudulent. The share price collapsed in 2014 because, some thought, the profit would never come, investing in growth was pointless, etc.
Last year Amazon made nearly $100bn in profit. Stock is up 20x from then...this is after AWS was known (everyone also that was a massive fraud, could never be profitable...we know it was printing from day one), after it was the world's biggest retailer, etc.
It is difficult to understate how consistently people make this mistake, not just individually but in aggregate. You see the same thing with restaurants, consumer products, office leasing, so many businesses. This is not to say that the future will happen any particular way but that what Anthropic and co are doing is obviously rational and based upon very real cash flow. Anthropic's growth in revenue is, I believe, unparalleled in modern corporate history. A slight difference in this case is also that the economics of training these models is improving exponentially over time.
The restaurant next to the mines were profitable up until the moment the mines themselves shut down: one doesn't exist without the other.
You can't ringfence inference as "the profitable bit" and then hand-wave away the training. Without continuous training there is no inference product.
Claude 3 Opus isn't sitting there making revenue in 2026 - the thing is just deprecated. The moment you stop spending billions on the next model, your "profitable" inference business is on borrowed time until someone else makes it obsolete.
Maybe I made a mistake in my analogy... They're not growing a farm and then selling oranges. They're on a treadmill where stopping is death, and the treadmill costs $10bn a year to keep running.
You’re literally describing all companies. Google takes about $270bn/year to run. If they stopped spending that they’d die pretty darn quick. It’s also a description of working - unless you’d built up significant savings, if you stopped working you’re also going to die.
I’m struggling to find the quotes.
In other words, inference is fairly profitable for them and the rest of the money is spent growing revenue as quickly as possible. Building models is still an expensive line item but the costs for that are going down with time.
There is also maybe a “capture the market” mentality but I don’t think that’s necessarily it - the tools and processes are largely fungible and that’s a huge problem. They need to figure out how to make it sticky for “capture the market”, but there’s also a very real “grow as big as possible as quickly as possible to take on Google”; Google has an existential threat here.
They could have said the same about transistors. People keep inventing new ways to keep the costs down. Just look at the latest Qwen, DeepSeek, BitNet. Interesting tidbit: they’re all open, and as Google said in 2022: they have no moat.
How big/deep of a loss?
I feel like I read this every day for years that Uber did this same "idiotic, losing" strategy (how it was pitched/discussed) and then one day we woke up and... without much fuss, boom, they were profitable seemingly overnight.
Why? It's no less crazy than when Uber and Lyft were doing the same thing. Or when the entire tech industry was doing it in the dot com boom.
Investment-driven market growth at a loss is like the least surprising thing in all of this. The tech is new and fascinating. The bubble is just another trip through the funhouse.
But then they talk about using a newly purchased Mac to do the inference, running at full capacity, 24/7. Why would you do that? Apple silicon is fast but the author points out: you're only getting 10-40 tokens per second. It's not bad, but it's not meant for this!
It's comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, data centers don't pay residential electricity rates. Data centers use chips that are power efficient. Data centers use chips that aren't designed to be a Mac.
Apple silicon works out pretty good if you're not burning tokens 24/7/365 and you're not buying hardware specifically to do it. I use my Mac Studio a few times a week for things that I need it for, but I can run ollama on it over the tailnet "for free". The economics work when I'm not trying to make my Mac Studio behave like a H100 cluster with liquid cooling. Which should come as no surprise to anyone: more tokens per watt on hardware that's multi tenant with cheap electricity will pretty much always win.
That isn't the case for many, though, and there is a whole social media space where people are hyping up the latest homebrew options for running models, believing it frees them from the yoke of big AI.
Millions of people are buying big $ maxed-out hardware like the Mac Studios or DGX specifically to run LLMs. Someone rationally running the numbers is a good thing.
the less you use local LLM, the less sense it makes since you paid a lot for hardware you don't use
You also get the benefit of privacy, freedom from censorship, and control over the model used (i.e. it will not be rugpulled on you in three months after you've built a workflow around a specific model's idiosyncrasies).
It depends on how often you use it (and your tolerance for slow inference) and whether you would have otherwise bought a higher spec. For my needs, this costs a LOT more.
but you lose access to the most capable models, you can run only the small ones
If you want a faster model, go for qwen3.6 35B (or gemma 4 26B if gemma models perform better for your tasks). There is a reason why people (myself included) haven't shut up about those two (especially the 27B). Its small enough to run at a decent speed (especially with the built in MTP that finally has official llama.cpp support) and for many workloads (every benchmark I have ever thrown at it) it is matching or surpassing models it has no right to.
A couple of days ago I woke up with my internet being down, started 27B in pi, told it to diagnose whats wrong by giving it my router's password, went to grab a coffee and by the time I got back, i had a full report with suggestion on how to proceed. I love openrouter and I use it for many things, but it is not cheaper.
Subjectivity and opinions based on personal experience with all those models implied naturally, I assume the 31B gemma has cases in which it edges out, I've just failed finding any and I have been running all 4 models mentioned since hours after each of them dropped nonstop for different tasks. Hell, for my hermes, I've started getting better results once I switched from gemma 4 26B to qwen3.5 9B, not even the massively improved 3.6 series. It just feels outdated/ cherrypicked to not use what by many accounts is the current consumer hardware SOTA if doing such an analysis.
Likewise, DeepSeek V4 Flash is quite accessible on local models, with DwarfStar 4 making it easy to run on a 96GB MacBook.
There's nothing wrong with paying for inference, but local models bring up some pretty amazing possibilities, such as entirely offline usage or being able to work on private PII, legally privileged, etc. sort of data, or performing tasks with no concern given whatsoever towards billing overruns.
The other possibility is being able to build a service which you can be 100% assured you can keep running without worrying about a service going down or being end-of-lifed, which is currently a problem with frontier models. My local Qwen setup is entirely predictable. It can run as long as I can keep finding hardware to run it.
A sensible strategy uses both: have local inference tools available, and use both low-cost and high-cost cloud based models. You can use GPT-5.5 and Opus-4.7 for things they excel at (including laundering the latter via a Claude subscription to make it cheaper) for demanding reasoning tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro for slightly less demanding tasks, V4 Flash for most (not all) code generation, and then local models for things where you want a local model.
This is like comparing e-bike at home with e-bike rental and concluding therefore we need to rent Toyota since it can go at similar speeds. Getting tired of bad posts getting much attention .
I looked at a couple random agentic sessions in my openrouter activity, and the input cost is 10x the output cost.
Prompt caching on openrouter is complicated and unreliable. On local hardware with llama-cpp, it's mostly free.
More critically, in practice, setting up local models seems more like a hobby, an educational exercise, or an act of privacy control than it is for cost cutting or productivity.
It's in the same category as rooftop solar for me. It doesn't have to make strict economic sense if you're the particular type of person who gets peace of mind from control of infrastructure / reduced dependency.
But in _every_ metric other than privacy it was better to run via OpenRouter than a local model, and not by a small amount.
Direct link to the comparison charts:
https://sendcheckit.com/blog/ai-powered-subject-line-alterna...
Shortening the lifespan?
There's a bunch of retro hardware which should make people pause and realize they're stupid to assume hardware slows down on average even 5% 20 years later (it's probably closer to 2% and I'm being generous).
HVAC/power delivery and generation are the major factors, and if you didn't skimp/get defective parts for this and replace failed moving parts (usually fans), your hardware is basically the same 20 years down the line as it was today.
Also using LLMs locally doesn't even induce sustained 100% GPU usage over significant periods of time for most real (agentic coding in OpenCode) use-cases.
Add to that the privacy improvements and data protection and potentially further specific inferance if needed it's a no brainer.
Again, Ai is a tool, and the right tool for the job, I would wager with no evidence looked up, is that the majority of Devs would be happy with 10-30 per second locally.
* Industrial power pricing
* Wholesale hardware pricing
* Utilization density of shared API
means API always wins a cost shootout.
Privacy & tinkering is cool too though
> 64 gigs should run a model like Gemma 4 31b
No, it can run anything in the 70B range. It's a notable quality upgrade from the 30B, which isn't obvious because the famous flurry of April releases didn't contain any 70Bs.
It can also run 120B in UD-Q3. Or 230B disk-streamed.
tldr;
Hardware deprecation costs are the major factor.
But, if we assume ZERO hardware deprecation (not realistic), then local inference becomes super cheap.. roughly, 90%+ cheaper.
Third case: the break-even happens only if we can get at the very very very least, 8.7 years of useful hardware life. A more realistic number, however, when working 8 hrs/day and not of 24 hrs/day, is around 25 years.
So, for now, local inference is preferable if you deeply care about privacy. From cost perspective, it's still not there.
Next paragraph
> At ~50-100 watts and $0.18/kWh that's $0.009 or $0.018 per hour. $0.02 per hour. $0.48 cents per day for the electricity to be running inference at 100%.
lol
So, for comparison, a 5090 has 32GB of VRAM and you can get one for ~$3000 maybe. To go beyond that memory with current generation (ie Blackwell) GPUs, you have to go to the RTX 6000 Pro w/ 96GB of VRAM and that's almost $10,000 for the GPU by itself. Beyond that you're in the H100/H200 GPUs and you're talking much bigger money.
Part of the problem here is the author is looking at laptops. That's the only place you'll find the M5 Max currently. The real problem here is that the Mac Studios haven't been updated in almost 2 years. There were configs of those with 256/512GB of RAM but they've been discontinued, possibly because of the RAM shortage and possibly because of they're reaching EOL. Apple hasn't said why. They never do.
Many expect M5 Ultra Mac Studios in Q3 and the M5 Ultra may well have >1TB/s of memory bandwidth (for comparison, the 5090 is 1.8TB/s). Memory bandwidth isn't the only issue. A 5090 will still have more compute power (most likely) but being able to run large models without going to a $10k+ GPU could be huge.
But yes, it's hard to compete with the scales and discounted electricity of a data center. Even H200 compute hours are kinda cheap if you consider the capital cost of what you're using.
I've looked into getting a 128GB M5 Max 16" MBP. That retails for $6k. You might be able to get it for $5400. But I don't think the value proposition is quite there yet. It's close though.
Apple isn’t expecting wholesale adoption of on-device models this year or next. But all of their design and iteration suggests they see it coming.
E.g.
Privacy
Uptime
Future cost structure controls
This is a field that has moved very quickly. And it has moved in a direction to try to trap users into certain habits. But these habits might not best align with what best benefits end users today or some time in the future.
A 2022 Mac Studio w/ M1 Ultra and 128gb was ~$5200 new and I see them selling for over $4k on eBay.
Can’t sell your used tokens…
If small model is great it will be hosted with good electricity cost and will be utilized 24/7.
Isn't it 2+2 of economics ?
CPU is a commodity, and we are still buying cpu and ram from vendors for same reason
Running locally, you get confidentiality of knowing your tokens are only ever being processed by your own hardware. You get the integrity of knowing your model isn't being secretly or silently quantized differently behind the scenes, or having it's weights updated in ways you don't want. And you get the availability of never having to worry about an API outage, or even an internet outage, for local inference capacity.
And this isn't even starting to address the whole added world of features and tunability you get when you control the inference stack. Sampling parameters, caching mechanisms, etc.
OpenRouter may be cheaper than frontier labs, but you still lose all of these benefits from open weight models the moment you decide to rely on someone else's hardware for your processing.
Apart from that, like detailed in the the article, pricing for local compute also depends on electricity prices.
By the way, I don't want to snark about it, my English is not very good, but it's "per se", not "per say". Just commenting on this petty thing because it seems to be a common misspelling, and it always trips me up a bit. Makes me wonder about another supposed meaning like "from hearsay".
Oh, and the author didn't mention at all anything related to inference optimization, so no idea if they even know about or enabled things like speculative decoding, optimized attention backends, quantization, etc.
At least AI slop would have hit on far more of the things I listed above. This is worse-than-AI.
Also nobody I know picks local over OpenRouter on price. They pick it for offline, for data not leaving the machine, for no rate limits, for not having a provider go down mid-task. If $/Mtok is the only axis, sure, cloud wins.
In practice the pattern I see is leaving a small model running on easy background tasks while using the laptop normally, not a dedicated inference box hammered flat out for 5 years.