Tibo Sottiaux, who leads Core Products & Platform at OpenAI, posted on X that a poll on combining a “2x” proposal for Pro 100/200/500 with the return of usage limits in five-hour blocks drew less support than he had expected. The results highlight a gap between the provider’s aim of smoothing out concentrated demand and users’ desire to use the service whenever they want.
Increasing usage allowances is not always welcomed
Sottiaux had expected more support for the “2x” option in exchange for restoring usage limits in five-hour blocks. But the poll’s response did not match his expectations. The post’s central point is that a proposal to “increase” usage alone was not enough to win users over.
The post does not specify exactly what would be doubled or how many votes each option received. Still, it is clear that increasing the total allowance while accepting time-based restrictions was presented as a single trade-off. For users, what they would have to give up in exchange matters as much as what they would gain.
How easy an AI service is to use depends on more than the amount available. Whether users can keep working when they need to also affects the value they get for the price. The response to this proposal offers a way to think about that distinction.
More overall usage may not make up for interruptions mid-task
For example, someone finishing a document ahead of a deadline or focused on fixing code may find that usage allowance left for another time does nothing for the task at hand. This does not show what poll participants’ actual circumstances were, but it offers one possible reason users might reject time-based limits.
By contrast, people who use the service a little at a time between work or study sessions may prioritize a larger overall allowance over limits on short-term use. The same change can be received differently depending on how people use the service.
Even if the provider sees a change as “increasing the amount users can use,” users may see it as “restricting when they can use it.” If the terms change without addressing this difference in perception, frustration over interrupted work could overshadow the benefit of a larger allowance.
When frustration becomes a reason to switch
When considering customer attrition, what matters is not just whether limits exist, but whether users can plan their workflows. If they cannot predict how much they can use the service, or are repeatedly stopped when they need it, they may have reason to consider another service.
Paid services are judged in particular on how reliably users can access them in exchange for the price. If explanations about increased usage allowances do not match the actual experience, users may feel that inconvenience has increased—even if the change was intended to be presented as an improvement to the terms.
What this post shows is a mismatch between the support for the proposal and the executive’s expectations. It does not provide figures showing the scale of cancellations or moves to other services, but misreading what users value is an issue that cannot be ignored when considering customer retention.
Tibo’s challenge: balancing demand management and user freedom
Known in tech circles as “Tibo,” Sottiaux leads OpenAI’s Core Products & Platform and is a key figure in Codex’s development. He is also known for announcing a plan to release some kind of improvement every day for 28 days—and, if he failed to do so, to fully reset usage limits for all users.
While signaling a commitment to ongoing improvements, the poll highlighted that the provider’s idea of an improvement does not necessarily align with the terms users want. The issue is not only increasing usage allowances, but also how much freedom users retain to work intensively.
Tibo saidin this postthat the purpose of restoring usage limits in five-hour blocks was to smooth out concentrated demand. The proposal combined a “2x” increase for Pro 100/200/500 with the return of time-based limits.
Comments