Sonnet, Opus, and Fable are pushing so much revenue growth right now that it makes more sense to keep growing the expensive models than growing the cheap models.
They haven't really mentioned practically anything about Haiku in quite a while so I imagine nobody except for people inside Anthropic will have any indication.
Maybe it'll come out eventually but they don't even include it on some of their comparison benchmarks anymore, so I figure its very low priority for them.
No, you're off by one - likely because the OpenAI models punch above their weight in those comparison, hence my original message. You've shifted the comparisons to favor Anthropic.
Fable/Mythos are much larger than Sol. They match to Astra which is supposedly at least 10T. Astra is already publicly confirmed as a new family.
Opus matches to Sol. Sonnet to Terra. Haiku to Luna.
Anthropic is able to compete at the frontier high-end by launching massively large expensive models. But their inability to compete on small models belies their efficiency aspirations across the stack.
I think the signal from Anthropic is pretty clear between Haiku not getting an update in a year and the Sonnet issues this year. They don't care about low intelligence models. You should go elsewhere.
That's what we've done, migrated workflows away from Haiku and Sonnet. I actually think this is not a crazy position because these lower models have so much competition from Grok, OpenAI, DeepSeek, and about 20 other labs with really solid models in the Haiku to Sonnet range. So what is the point of Anthropic competing in these spaces where everything is going towards zero cost?
Isn't this basically the phenomenon known as low-end disruption/upmarket migration? [1] Which is often viewed as an unhealthy sign for a company that recognizes it can't keep up with efficiency of a new market entrant but unwilling or unable to make changes to their business model to stay competitive.
The trap being that it's a rational decision at the beginning to focus on the most profitable lines of business with highest margins. But the disruptor then captures the value of the abandoned market to finance innovations to move up into higher margin tiers, forcing another retreat.
The cycle can repeat until the once dominant firm is relegated to a tiny niche with no growth prospects or until fixed costs exceed dwindling revenues thus eventually resulting in insolvency/acquisition. I remember learning about it from a case study of how American companies like GE and GM reacted in different ways to Japanese competition emerging in the 70s and 80s.
It's not always a bad strategy but I think a pre-IPO company that's only a fear years old would generally prefer to grow the size of their potential market vs. shrink it preemptively.
