LLMSwaps

Announced end dates for video models, and which apps still carry them

Aggregating at the application layer or the maker layer

Both entries sell other companies' models and only one of them makes any. That changes who a customer can hold responsible: an application aggregating six makers has no schedule of its own, while a maker reselling others has its own generations on the same table as theirs. From 2 source pages, read 2026-09-12 to 2026-09-22; no maker pays to be listed.

What each page says, point by pointFilled where the entry's own page addresses that point, hollow where the page is silent on it.What each page says, point by pointinvideo AILumaOwn models on the menuOwn models on the menu — invideo AI: None; every line is another maker'sOwn models on the menu — Luma: Two house generationsSchedules the entry controlsSchedules the entry controls — invideo AI: NoneSchedules the entry controls — Luma: Its own two linesSchedules it inheritsSchedules it inherits — invideo AI: SixSchedules it inherits — Luma: Several, from other makersVersions givenVersions given — invideo AI: Makers named, versions mostly notVersions given — Luma: Versions named on the plan tableIs the mixture acknowledgedIs the mixture acknowledged — invideo AI: The list names six makersIs the mixture acknowledged — Luma: The plan wording names other makers
Fig. 1 Filled where the entry's own page addresses that point, hollow where the page is silent on it.
What aggregating at each layer changes about responsibility. Recorded 2026-09-22.
On this pointinvideo AILuma
Own models on the menuNone; every line is another maker'sTwo house generations
Schedules the entry controlsNoneIts own two lines
Schedules it inheritsSixSeveral, from other makers
Versions givenMakers named, versions mostly notVersions named on the plan table
Is the mixture acknowledgedThe list names six makersThe plan wording names other makers

Inclusion rule. Both cells on a row come from the entry's own published pages. A maker counted here is one the entry itself names. Order. Own models first, then schedules, then version detail.

1A maker that resells has a floor under it

If every licensed line were withdrawn, one of these entries would still have two house generations to sell and the other would have nothing. That is a difference in the worst case rather than in the ordinary one.

It also means one entry can be asked about part of its menu and the other can only pass questions upward. Neither publishes a route for doing so.

2Version detail is where they really differ

One names makers and mostly not versions, so a dated announcement about a specific version cannot be matched to anything purchased. The other names versions on the plan table, so it can.

That is a bigger practical difference than the layer question. A menu of makers is a marketing list; a menu of versions is something a production can audit against.

A maker that resells has a floor under itIf every licensed line were withdrawn, one of these entries would still have two house generations to sell and the other would have nothing. That is a difference in the worst case rather than in the ordinary one.Two places aggregation can happenAggregating at theapplication layerSix makers named, versions mostly not. No house line, and noschedule of its own.Aggregating at the makerlayerTwo house generations plus licensed rows, with versions on theplan table.What both lackAny published route for passing a maker's retirement on to asubscriber.One entry can answer for part of its menu; the other can only pass questions upward
Fig. 2 The bigger practical difference is version detail: a menu of makers cannot be matched to a dated announcement.

3One listed line already carries a date

The aggregated menu still names a model whose maker has announced that its interface closes. Both statements are current, and the register keeps them side by side without predicting what the application does next.

The habit that works at either layer is checking the maker rather than the reseller, which is the whole reason model pages and entry pages are kept separate here.

4The same question, put to a third entry

What SceneMixer publishes on this column, beside invideo AI and Luma. Recorded 2026-10-13.
On this pointSceneMixerSource
When a tier is withdrawnWhen a tier is withdrawn, text and image work falls back to the default tier and video to the tier the episode last used if it is still listed, otherwise the default; the price shown is the tier that will runSceneMixer, withdrawn tier guide

Inclusion rule. SceneMixer's own statements that bear on the column this pair was chosen for. Order. The statement closest to the column first.

All of its readings are on the SceneMixer entry.

  • Models carried
    Google Veo 3.1, Sora 2, Kling AI, Wan AI, Pixverse AI and Hailuo AIaggregatedinvideo AI, model list / recorded 2026-09-12
  • Models carried
    Ray3.2 and Ray3.14 in house, plus Veo 3.1, three Kling entries, MiniMax H3 and three Seedance variantshouse and licensed on one tableLuma, plans and pricing / recorded 2026-09-22

5Sources

Both readings come from the pages the entries publish themselves: invideo AI and Luma, read 2026-09-22. The column being compared is Named replacement. Other pairs: PixVerse and Vidu, Bedrock and Wan-AI.