New payment data from Ramp suggests that Anthropic’s most advanced AI model, Fable 5, has had a slow start among enterprise customers, the Financial Times reports.
New payment data from Ramp suggests that Anthropic’s most advanced AI model, Fable 5, has had a slow start among enterprise customers, the Financial Times reports.
Two months after launch, Fable 5 accounts for about 11% of total enterprise spending on Anthropic models, breaking the previous trend of customers quickly moving to the most powerful model.
According to analysts and investors, the development is mainly due to Fable 5’s high price and the fact that cheaper models are good enough for most tasks.
For example, Anthropic’s smaller, cheaper Opus 5 model has surpassed Fable 5 in enterprise spending since its launch in late July. Anthropic itself has declined to comment on the data.
In context
- Topic: Estrategia y Gobierno de TI — Decisiones de portafolio, costo total, gobierno y marcos de referencia.
- Source: CIO
- Published: 24/08/2026
Continue reading at the original source →
Excerpt published automatically by the site radar. The full text belongs to its publisher and is linked above.
Why it matters
IT governance rarely fails for lack of technology. It fails for lack of clarity about who decides what. A story like this one is usually the visible symptom of an operating model that no longer fits the size of the organisation, and those models get changed before the pressure arrives, not after.
When I look at a move like this, the question is not which tool they bought but which capability was left installed: an architecture function that holds the line on criteria, a prioritised portfolio with real business owners, and metrics somebody actually reviews every week. Without that, any announcement dissolves within twelve months.
What usually goes wrong
Where I see this fail most is in the second half of the year. The announcement is made with energy, the team gets assembled, and eight months later the person driving it changed role or company. Without an institutional owner, not just a personal one, the programme fades without anybody formally cancelling it.
What to watch
- How the relationship with current vendors is left, which is usually where the dependency nobody measured is sitting.
- Who ends up owning the decision, and with what budget of their own rather than borrowed.
- Whether business metrics appear or only delivery metrics — cost per transaction beats percentage complete.
How I read this entry
If this landed on my desk, the first thing I would ask for is not a plan. It is an honest inventory of what is already running and what it costs to keep it alive. It almost always turns out that the budget for the new thing comes from switching off something old that nobody wants to name, and that conversation decides whether the project lives.
This entry is an excerpt from the original source, selected by the site radar. The commentary above is the site's own and does not belong to the cited publisher.
Living through this in your own team?
Open the chat and tell me how you're handling it. I'm interested in comparing notes.
