The Subscription Class
1.4 billion people with a system behind them. 7.8 billion people expected to keep up.
The scenario: I predict a future market of 1.4 billion people each paying roughly $500 a month to a provider such as OpenAI, SpaceX, Anthropic, Google, or Meta for a bundle extending well beyond AI. The remaining 7.8 billion are outside it. These are scenario numbers totaling 9.2 billion, not today’s population count, a dated demographic forecast, or an announced subscription.
Imagine two people standing next to each other. Same age. Comparable intelligence. Equally ambitious. One of them has a monthly subscription.
When she encounters a problem, a system gathers the background, remembers the relevant history, prepares options, and coordinates the next steps. Her devices, connectivity, personal agents, and participating services work together. Much of the preparation happens before she knows she needs it.
The person beside her has a phone, internet access, and perhaps a free AI assistant. He can ask a question. He still has to assemble the machinery that turns the answer into something that happens.
From his position, she appears to have superpowers.
My prediction is that this becomes a defining class division: the people who can afford a continuous extension of themselves, and the people who must compete with that extension using mostly their own time.
The product is a larger life
A $500 monthly bundle will have to justify itself against ordinary household spending. It cannot simply be a better chatbot. It must absorb bills people already pay and responsibilities they already carry.
Picture intelligence and personal agents combined with communications, cloud storage, entertainment, device access, and service allowances. Some providers could add transportation through partners, places to work or gather, and preferential access to other networks. The contents would differ. A mobility allowance is plausible; unlimited rides and unlimited physical services are not assumptions this prediction requires.
What matters is that one relationship connects the parts. A conversation changes a calendar. The calendar coordinates a ride. The ride becomes time for a tailored lesson. The lesson prepares a meeting for which the research is already organized. Each component knows enough about the others to remove another handoff.
The subscriber purchases an environment in which more of her intentions can become real. That is the source of the apparent superpower.
Five names. One contest.
OpenAI, SpaceX, Anthropic, Google, and Meta are possible providers in this prediction, not five companies announcing the same plan. They would approach the bundle from different positions and would need different partners. Ownership of every component is unnecessary. Owning the subscription relationship may be enough to organize the rest.
Pieces of this direction are already visible. OpenAI introduced apps inside ChatGPT. Anthropic introduced connections between Claude and outside tools. Google’s AI plans combine AI with storage and other subscription benefits. SpaceX documented satellite messaging for ordinary LTE phones. Meta put AI and live translation into glasses. These are documented components. Their convergence into the bundle I describe is my forecast.
The commercial contest would be to become the company a person pays to expand the practical limits of daily life. The social consequence would depend on who can afford to enter.
Superpowers arrive as ordinary mornings
We tend to imagine superpowers as dramatic physical abilities. The first subscription superpowers may look like an absence of friction: never starting from zero, never losing the thread, and having several useful processes moving while your attention is somewhere else.
Same person. Same morning.
Change the surrounding system. These are imagined outcomes, not product guarantees.
Arrive with a first version.
A suitable business opportunity has been flagged. The requirements, background research, and a draft proposal are waiting for review. The person decides whether to proceed.
Keep moving while help coordinates.
A disrupted appointment triggers alternative times, travel options, and prepared messages. The person approves the change instead of rebuilding the day.
Begin with what the system learned.
The morning’s corrections update the personal context. The next proposal starts closer to the person’s actual needs.
First, find the opening.
The same person searches for opportunities, checks eligibility, gathers records, and starts a proposal between other obligations.
Become the coordination system.
The disrupted appointment means calls, waiting, calendar changes, and travel arrangements. The proposal pauses while the person repairs the day.
Carry the whole history yourself.
The lessons exist in scattered messages, files, and memory. The next attempt begins with another round of assembly.
Neither version makes a person infallible. Systems miss things. Agents make mistakes. Judgment, relationships, and responsibility still matter. But reliable preparation across enough ordinary situations changes how much a person can attempt.
The advantage is cumulative. A person gets more attempts, better prepared attempts, and more useful memory from those attempts. Over years, that can become a very large difference between two equally capable people.
The dividing line is how much world a person can move with one hour of attention.
When the advantage becomes the entrance requirement
The most consequential stage comes when institutions adapt to the subscribers.
A client starts expecting a researched proposal by the afternoon. A school designs an assignment around continuous individual tutoring. A service assumes everyone has an agent that can exchange records, compare terms, and maintain the conversation. A small business has to respond at the speed of a competitor whose systems never stop preparing.
At that point, membership becomes part of what the market silently assumes a capable person possesses. The subscriber experiences convenience. The person outside experiences a rising minimum for participation.
This can happen without anyone deciding to exclude anybody. Each institution makes a locally reasonable adjustment to what its best equipped participants can do. Taken together, those adjustments make ordinary life harder to navigate without the bundle.
That is how a consumer product becomes a class boundary.
The price of entering the loop
Five hundred dollars a month is $6,000 a year. For some households, replacing several existing bills could make the bundle feel economical. For many others, that amount is beyond reach even if the benefits are substantial. The ability to recognize its value does not create the ability to pay.
Then comes the loop: membership helps someone win work, save time, and build useful relationships. Those gains help finance the next month. Someone outside needs the gains to afford admission but needs admission to compete for the gains.
Across 1.4 billion individual subscribers, the scenario implies $700 billion in monthly payments, or $8.4 trillion annually. That is simple scenario arithmetic, not a revenue forecast. Some spending would replace existing bills, and much would flow to partners and physical services. Even so, whoever controls the relationship would occupy an extraordinary position between people and the means by which they participate.
Employer sponsorship would blur the line. So would family plans, public provision, cheaper competitors, and regional pricing. The real world would have many levels of access. But a spectrum can still contain a sharp divide between people with dependable, integrated capability and people piecing together whatever they can get.
The advantage children inherit
The division would enter the household long before a child earns a salary.
One child grows up with a patient tutor, a translator, a memory of earlier lessons, and adults whose administrative burdens have been reduced. Another has talent and curiosity but depends on whatever time, connectivity, and support the household can spare.
A subscription would not replace a loving parent or a good teacher. It could multiply the opportunities surrounding both. By the time the children compete for the same place, the accumulated preparation may look like a natural difference in ability.
The danger is that society congratulates the system’s beneficiaries for capacities that the system helped produce, then interprets the struggles of everyone else as personal failure.
A class you have to renew
There is another unsettling feature of this future. The power is rented.
A subscriber may build years of routines around a provider’s memory, identity, devices, and partner network. Losing income, changing employers, entering an unsupported country, or having an account suspended could interrupt several supports at once. A billing problem could become a participation problem.
Members would have more power than outsiders while remaining dependent on the company that maintains their extension. Portability would therefore matter as much as admission: can you take your history, relationships, and working systems with you, and can they still function elsewhere?
A society organized around subscriptions would need credible answers about continuity, exit, and access to essential services. Otherwise the new class would enjoy extraordinary capability on revocable terms.
This boundary can move
The strongest challenge to my prediction is that good enough capability becomes cheap, open, portable, and widely available. Schools, libraries, governments, employers, and competitors could bring dependable systems to people who cannot pay $500 a month. Public infrastructure could prevent a premium bundle from becoming the price of ordinary participation.
That outcome is possible. It would weaken the class boundary I am describing. Free answers alone, however, would not resolve a divide built from devices, connectivity, coordination, physical access, and continuity. The relevant test is what a person can reliably accomplish with the whole arrangement.
I would look for the boundary in three places: whether everyday opportunities increasingly assume a personal agent; whether subscribers accumulate practical advantages faster than outsiders can catch up; and whether leaving a provider means losing the ability to function in systems built around it.
My prediction is that 1.4 billion people eventually buy something that feels like superpowers, while 7.8 billion encounter the consequences of living alongside them. The people on either side remain equally human. The systems surrounding them make that equality harder to see.
Source notes · The sources establish existing components, not the predicted price, adoption, market shares, or future bundle. Product availability varies by location and plan.
1 thought on “The Subscription Class”