Somebody else's schedule, or your own hardware
A hosted model can be withdrawn on a date somebody else sets. Weights you downloaded keep working under the licence already granted, on hardware you keep paying for. The trade is uncertainty against overhead, and only one of the two can be budgeted in advance. As of 2026-09-12.
| Hosted access | Weights you hold |
|---|---|
| Ends on a date you do not set | Ends when you stop maintaining it |
| No hardware to run or pay for | Hardware, storage and an inference stack |
| Upgrades arrive, sometimes unasked | Upgrades never arrive at all |
| A notice period, on a few entries | No notice needed for anything |
| Somebody else keeps it working | Nobody does, including for new machines |
Inclusion rule. Properties that differ between reaching a model through a service and holding a copy of it. Order. Paired, with the hosted case first.
1Neither side is safer in the abstract
One arrangement carries a risk that cannot be quantified: a date nobody has published, arriving whenever a seller decides. The other carries a cost that can be quantified precisely and has to be paid every month.
For a single piece of work the hosted route wins easily. For a run of episodes that has to look the same in twelve months, a cost that can be planned starts to beat a date that cannot.
2Holding a copy does not mean holding capability forever
A licence settles permission, not whether the weights still run on next year's toolchain. Drivers move, frameworks move, and nothing obliges a publisher to keep the model working with any of it.
So the overhead is not only hardware. Somebody has to keep the stack alive, which is a standing commitment rather than a purchase.
3Procurement risk replaces schedule risk
If a repository listing comes down, nobody loses a running copy and anybody who has not fetched it yet loses the chance, including for new machines later. That arrives without a date too.
The mitigation is unglamorous and complete: keep the weights you depend on rather than the address they came from, and check the copy restores.
4Most productions will mix the two
A hosted model for exploration and a held copy for the engine a season depends on is a reasonable shape, and it needs the per-file record more than either extreme, because the same account produces work from two arrangements.
That is a decision about which risk to carry where, rather than a technical choice. Both routes appear in this register and neither publishes anything about reproducibility.
5Where each vendor's own wording lives
None of the above is a date. Announced end dates, and the apps still carrying the models they apply to, are kept on the calendar with the announcement each one came from.
- Published weights — what a licence on a model card does and does not settle
- A held copy against a status code — the same trade, read on two entries
Guidance rather than a dated entry. No line here is a vendor statement, and none should be read as an announcement. The sourced material is on the calendar. Related: Auditing your own strings, Finishing a season.