[HN Gopher] Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subs...
___________________________________________________________________
Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions
Author : sergiotapia
Score : 555 points
Date : 2026-01-09 03:44 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| minimaxir wrote:
| This appears to be a part of a crackdown on third-party clients
| using Claude Code's credentials/subscriptions but not through
| Claude Code.
|
| Not surprising as this type of credential reuse is always a gray
| area, but weird Anthropic deployed it on a Thursday night without
| any warning as the inevitable shitstorm would be very
| predictable.
| immibis wrote:
| They're losing money on every inference, so of course they want
| as many banned users as they can get away with.
| metadat wrote:
| Yes, it appears they've been cracking down elsewhere as well:
| https://github.com/charmbracelet/crush/pull/1783
|
| Are they really that strapped already? It took Netflix like 20
| years before they began nickel and diming us.. with Anthro it's
| starting after less than 20 months in the spotlight.
|
| I suspect it's really about control and the culture of
| Anthropic, rather than only finances. The message is: no more
| funtime, use Claude CLI, pay a lot for API tokens, or get your
| account banned.
| __loam wrote:
| All of these companies are losing money in the billions every
| quarter. Look at how frequent the raises are.
| metadat wrote:
| It isn't that simple, demand is growing and they're
| investing in that growth. With the exception of ElGoog the
| providers are all private entities, so we don't really
| know.
|
| Edit: TMTD, hi! That makes sense, yeah.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Unit profitability is out of reach, the demand curve
| exceeds the profitability curve.
|
| Edit: hello, good to chat again!
| cma wrote:
| They've added this change at the same time they added random
| trick prompts to try and get you hit enter on the training opt
| in from late last year. I've gotten three popups inside claude
| code today at random times trying to trick me into having it
| train my data with a different selection defaulted than I've
| already chosen.
|
| (edit 4 times now just today)
| skeptic_ai wrote:
| Last time I mentioned they are sketchy I got a ton of
| downvotes. I'm happy to see more support.
| transcriptase wrote:
| More evidence the EU solved the wrong problem. Instead of
| mandating cookie banners, mandate a single global "fuck off"
| switch: one-click, automatic opt-out from any
| feature/setting/telemetry/tracking/training that isn't
| strictly required or clearly beneficial to the user as an
| individual. If it's mainly there for data collection, ads,
| attribution, "product improvement", or monetization, it
| should be off by default and remain that way so long as the
| "fuck off" option is toggled. Burden of proof on the
| provider. Fines exceeding what it takes to get growth teams
| and KPI hounds to have legal coach them on what "fuck off"
| means and why they need to.
| croes wrote:
| Remember what happened do the DNT flag in the browser?
|
| They just ignored until it was gone.
|
| If you don't give them a way to trick and annoy you into
| accept tracking they ignore completely what you want
| adastra22 wrote:
| DNT wasn't actually legally mandated.
| memoriuaysj wrote:
| remember how all of HN and tech people were saying that
| DNT is a Micro$oft scam designed to break privacy because
| it was enabled by default without requiring user action?
|
| to the point that Apache web server developers added a
| custom rule in the default httpd.conf to strip away
| incoming DNT headers !!!
|
| https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2012/09/apach...
| wolvoleo wrote:
| DNT was useless because it didn't have a legal basis. It
| would have been amazing if they had mandated something
| like this instead of the cookie walls.
|
| Advertisers ignored it because they could. And complained
| that it defaulted to on, however cookies are supposed to
| be opt-in so this is how it's supposed to work anyway.
| B480FA8D wrote:
| The "crackdown" is really mild though. To be fair to Anthropic,
| I don't think they have been committed to banning third-party
| tools.
|
| github:anomalyco/opencode?rev=5e0125b78c8da0917173d4bcd00f7a005
| 0590c55 (a trivial patch that works for now)
| commanderkeen08 wrote:
| No. Do you realize how much of a joke Claude code is? Under the
| hood. How they implemented client auth?
|
| Well let me tell you
|
| https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/blob/dev/packages/open...
|
| You literally send your first message "you are Claude code"
|
| The fact that this ever worked was insane.
|
| Headline is more like anthropic vibes a bug and finally catches
| it.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| There is no way to prevent people from using a custom client.
| skeptic_ai wrote:
| So now you just need to remove the "read" tool to
| authenticate?
| _flux wrote:
| Or call the tool "Read" and it works, according to an issue
| comment.
|
| But actually the solution is checking out how the official
| client does it and then doing the same steps, though if
| people start doing this then Anthropic will probably start
| making it more difficult to monitor and reverse engineer.
|
| It might not matter, as some people have a lot of expertice
| in this, but people might still get the message and move
| away to alternatives.
| realharo wrote:
| The endgame is a small background agent that runs Claude
| Code every once in a while, inspects its traffic, and
| adjusts on the fly.
| _flux wrote:
| Then they'd start pinning certs and hiding keys inside
| the obfuscated binary to make traffic inspection harder?
|
| And if an open source tool would start to use those keys,
| their CI could just detect this automatically and change
| the keys and the obfuscation method. Probably quite
| doable with LLMs..
| realharo wrote:
| Without breaking legitimate clients?
|
| At some point it becomes easier to just reevaluate the
| business model. Or just make a superior product.
| _flux wrote:
| Aren't Anthropic in control of all the legitimate
| clients? They can download a new version, possibly
| automatically.
|
| I believe the key issue here is that the product they're
| selling is all-you-can-eat API buffet for $200/month. The
| way they manage this is that they also sell the client
| for this, so they can more easily predict how much this
| is actually going to consume tokens (i.e. they can just
| put their new version of Claude Code to CI with some
| example scenarios and see it doesn't blow out their
| computing quota). If some third party client is also
| using the same subscription, it makes it much more
| difficult to make the deal affordable for them.
|
| As I understand it, using the per-token API works just
| fine and I assume the reason people don't want to use it
| because it ends up costing more.
| gpm wrote:
| Game developers disagree...
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| Time to add Denuvo to Claude Code?
| serf wrote:
| yeah, and it's been an easy win for game developers and
| smooth sailing on that front, too.
|
| ..right?
| notpushkin wrote:
| There are ways to make it painful. Though it would probably
| be painful for "legit" users, too.
| krackers wrote:
| Is there any other way to do it though? Even if they
| implemented some form of auth logic, since it's all client side
| anyone could spoof it. The only real way to distinguish Claude
| Code from non-Claude Code is behavioral analysis (e.g. system
| prompt, set of tools, etc.). Or engage in a cat and mouse game
| of increasingly obfuscated challenge/auth.
| firloop wrote:
| Tonight we are all Claude Code, Anthropic's official CLI for
| Claude.
| justinsaccount wrote:
| That sort of mechanism is not a "joke" and is often used for
| trademark/legal reasons, not technical ones.
| zerohp wrote:
| The joke is that AI companies pretend to care about doing
| legal things.
| ronsor wrote:
| Both Nintendo and Sega tried that, and it did not work as
| they legally intended.
| mcast wrote:
| I'm not surprised they closed the loophole, it always felt a
| little hacky using an Anthropic monthly sub as an API with a
| spoofed prompt ("You are Claude Code, Anthropic's official CLI
| for Claude") with OpenCode.
|
| Google will probably close off their Antigravity models to 3P
| tools as well.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Meanwhile, OpenAI co-signs https://github.com/steipete/oracle
| which lets you use your ChatGPT subscription to gain
| programmatic/agentic access to 5.2 Pro via automating browser
| access to the web frontend. Karpathy and other leaders have
| praised this feature on X.
|
| If that is indeed so welcome, imagine what else you could script
| via their website to get around Codex rate limits or other such
| things.
|
| After all what coud be so different about this than what browsers
| like Atlas do already
| sams99 wrote:
| Codex requires stuffing a very specific system prompt otherwise
| the custom endpoint will reject you
| behnamoh wrote:
| Anthro is having its Apple moment: too many customers means the
| company is always on the news, for better or worse.
|
| When iPhones receive negative reviews it's not like only Apple
| screwed up; others did too, but they sell so much less than Apple
| that no one hears about them: "Apple violated
| my privacy a tiny bit" makes the news; "Xiaomi sold my
| fingerprint info to 3rd party vendors" doesn't.
|
| Similarly, Anthropic is under heavy fire recently because
| frankly, Claude Code is the best coding agent out there, and it's
| not even close.
| NamlchakKhandro wrote:
| Lmao? seriously. Claude Code is epic levels terrible compared
| to opencode.
| dkdcio wrote:
| how so?
| throwaway7783 wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| sfmike wrote:
| find codex better by far in some cases
| Xevion wrote:
| Anthropic's models are good. Claude Code isn't good.
| dboon wrote:
| This is an unusual L for Anthropic. The unfortunate truth is that
| the engineering in opencode is so far ahead of Claude Code.
| Obviously, CC is a great tool, but that's more about the magic of
| the model than the engineering of the CLI.
|
| The opencode team[^1][^2] built an entire custom TUI backend that
| supports a good subset of HTML/CSS and the TypeScript ecosystem
| (i.e. not tied to Opencode, a generic TUI renderer). Then, they
| built the product as a client/server, so you can use the agent
| part of it for whatever you want, separate from the TUI. And
| THEN, since they implemented the TUI as a generic client, they
| could also build a web view and desktop view over the same
| server.
|
| It also doesn't flicker at 30 FPS whenever it spawns a subagent.
|
| That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many QoL
| features in opencode that put CC to shame. Again, CC is a magical
| tool, but the actual nuts and bolts engineering of it is pretty
| damning for "LLMs will write all of our code soon". I'm sorry,
| but I'm a decent-systems-programmer-but-terminal-moron and I
| cranked out a raymarched 3D renderer in the terminal for a Claude
| Wrapped[^] in a weekend that...doesn't flicker. I don't mean that
| in a look-at-me way. I mean that in a "a mid-tier systems
| programmer isn't making these mistakes" kind of way.
|
| Anyway, this is embarrassing for Anthropic. I get that opencode
| shouldn't have been authenticating this way. I'm not saying what
| they are doing is a rug pull, or immoral. But there's a reason
| people use this tool instead of your first party one. Maybe let
| those world class systems designers who created the runtime that
| powers opencode get their hands on your TUI before nicking
| something that is an objectively better product.
|
| [^1] https://github.com/anomalyco/opentui
|
| [^2] From my loose following of the development, not a monolith,
| and the person mostly responsible for the TUI framework is
| https://x.com/kmdrfx
|
| [^3] https://spader.zone/wrapped/
| IgorPartola wrote:
| My favorite is running CC in a screen session. There if I type
| out a prompt and then just start holding down the backspace key
| to delete a bunch of characters, at some point they key press
| refresh rate outruns CC's brains and it just starts acting like
| it moved the cursor but didn't delete anything. It is an
| embarrassing bug, but one that I suspect wouldn't be found in
| automated testing.
| eru wrote:
| Have you tried tmux?
| Ycros wrote:
| I use tmux, I have this exact same bug in tmux. It's part
| of why I use OpenCode and not Claude Code.
| eru wrote:
| Thanks!
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| unfortunately it's buggy in tmux as well. last night I
| couldn't hit esc after a long, long session as it simply
| ignored the key. doesn't happen outside of tmux.
| visarga wrote:
| Talking about embarrassing bugs, Claude chat (both web and
| iOS apps) lately tend to lose the user message when there is
| a network error. This happens every day to me lately. It is
| frustrating to retype a message from memory, first time you
| are "in the flow" second time it feels like unjust
| punishment.
|
| With all the Claude Code in the world how come they don't
| write good enough tests to catch UI bugs? I have come to the
| point where I preemptively copy the message in clipboard to
| prevent retyping.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Ctrl Z usually recovers the missing text, even across page
| refreshes
| prodigycorp wrote:
| This is an old bug. I cant believe they haven't fixed it
| yet. My compliments for the Claude frontend start and end
| at artifacts.
| dotancohen wrote:
| If you want to work around this bug, Claude Code supports all
| the readline shortcuts such as Ctrl-W and Ctrl-U.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| > Anyway, this is embarrassing for Anthropic.
|
| Why? A few times in this thread I hear people saying "they
| shouldn't have done this" or something similar but not given
| any reason why.
|
| Listing features you like of another product isn't a reason
| they shouldn't have done it. It's absolutely not embarrassing,
| and if anything it's embarrassing they didn't catch and do it
| sooner.
| ehnto wrote:
| As a user it is because I can no longer use the subscription
| with the greater tooling ecosystem.
|
| As for Anthropic, they might not want to do this as they may
| lose users who decide to use another provider, since without
| the cost benefit of the subscription it doesn't make sense to
| stay with them and also be locked into their tooling.
| what wrote:
| The subscription is for their products? If you want to use
| their models in another product you can pay for the API
| usage.
| ehnto wrote:
| From my perspective, I was paying for the model. This is
| kind of a pointless distinction now though.
|
| It was working and now it isn't, and the outcome is that
| some of their customers are unhappy and might move on.
|
| API access is not the same product offering as the
| subscription, so that's probably a practical option but
| not a comparable one.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| you yourself admit that API access is a separate product.
| if you want to use 3rd party tooling, pay for API access.
|
| if you want to use (most likely heavily) subsidized
| subscription plans, use their ecosystem.
|
| it's that simple.
| ehnto wrote:
| No one said it was complicated, and you might be
| imagining that I care more than I do. However if you
| can't understand why having a feature of a paid product
| removed is dissatisfying, then I cannot help you
| understand any further.
|
| I am surprised that anyone would think the "product" is
| the web interface and cli tool though, the product is
| very clearly the model. The difference in all options is
| merely how you access it.
| rovr138 wrote:
| > having a feature of a paid product removed is
| dissatisfying
|
| It wasn't a feature. It was a loophole. They closed it.
|
| There are multiple products. Besides models, there's a
| desktop app, there's claude code. They have
| subscriptions.
| ehnto wrote:
| Feature, attribute, loophole. I really doubt we
| fundamentally disagree on the situation here. You can use
| your empathy to understand why people are disappointed,
| and I will pretend such a detail oriented thread has made
| me feel content. Anthropic can do what they want, it's
| their service.
| gpm wrote:
| Because the value proposition that has people pay Anthropic
| is that it's the best LLM-coding tool around. When you're
| competing on "we can ban you from using the model we use with
| the same rate limits we use" everyone knows you have failed
| to do so.
|
| They might or might not currently have the best coding LLM -
| but they're admitting that whatever moat they thought they
| were building with claude code is worthless. The best LLM
| meanwhile seems to change every few months.
|
| They're clearly within their rights to do this, but it's also
| clearly embarrassing and calls into question the future of
| their business.
| OGEnthusiast wrote:
| > Because the value proposition that has people pay
| Anthropic is that it's the best LLM-coding tool around.
|
| Why not just use a local LLM instead? That way you don't
| have to pay anyone.
| pdntspa wrote:
| Because they still suck at real-world software
| engineering
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| none can touch any of the top models. none.
| casparvitch wrote:
| Is it that it's the best coding tool or the best model? I
| still get the best (most accurate) results out of anthropic
| models (but not out of CC).
| gpm wrote:
| Best coding tool is what makes users use something, a
| good model is just a component of that.
|
| I don't think "we have the current best model for coding"
| is a particularly good business proposition - even
| assuming it's true. Staying there looks like it's going
| to be a matter of throwing unsustainable amounts of money
| at training forever to stay ahead of the competition.
|
| Meanwhile the coding tool part looks like it could
| actually be sticky. People get attached to UIs. People
| are more effective in the UIs they are experienced with.
| There's a plausible story that codeveloping the UI and
| model could result in a better model for that purpose
| (because it's fine tuned on the UIs interactions).
|
| And independently "Claude Code" being the best coding
| tool around was great for brand recognition. "Open Code
| with the Opus 4.5 backend - no not the Claude
| subscription you can't use that - the API" won't be.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| I appreciate you sharing your thinking.
|
| I think it's reasonable to state that at the moment Opus
| 4.5 is the best coding model. Definitely debatable, but
| at least I don't think it controversial to argue that, so
| we'll start there.
|
| They offer the best* model at cost via an API (likely not
| actually at cost, but let's assume it is). They also will
| subsidize that cost for people who use their tool. What
| benefit do they get or why would a company want to
| subsidize the cost of people using another tool?
|
| > I don't think "we have the current best model for
| coding" is a particularly good business proposition -
| even assuming it's true. Staying there looks like it's
| going to be a matter of throwing unsustainable amounts of
| money at training forever to stay ahead of the
| competition.
|
| I happen to agree - to mee it seems tenuous having a
| business solely based on having the best model, but
| that's what the industry is trying to find out. Things
| change so quickly it's hard to predict 2 years out. Maybe
| they are first to reach XYZ tech that gives them a strong
| long term position.
|
| > Meanwhile the coding tool part looks like it could
| actually be sticky. People get attached to UIs. People
| are more effective in the UIs they are experienced with.
|
| I agree, but it doesn't seem like that's their m.o. If
| anything the opposite they aren't trying to get people
| locked into their tooling. They made MCPs a standard so
| all agents could adopt. I could be wrong, but thought
| they also did something similar with /scripts or
| something else. If you wanted to lock people in you'd
| have people build an ecosystem of useful tooling and make
| it not compatible with other agents, but they (to my
| eyes) have been continuously putting things into the
| community.
|
| So my general view of them is that they feel they have a
| vision with business model that doesn't require locking
| people into their tooling ecosystem. But they're still a
| business so don't gain from subsidizing people to use
| other tools. If people want their models in other tools
| use the "at-cost" APIs - why would they subsidize you to
| use someone else's tool?
| casparvitch wrote:
| There's just not that much IP in a UI like that. Every
| day we get articles on here that you can make an agent in
| 200 LOCs, Yegge's gas town in 2 weeks, etc. Training the
| model is the hard part, and what justifies a large
| valuation (350B for anthropic, c.f. 7B for jetbrains).
| matt-p wrote:
| I think in fairness to anthropic they are winning in llms
| right? Since 3.7 they have been better than any other lab.
| dboon wrote:
| It is embarrassing to restrict an open source tool that is
| (IMO) a strictly and very superior piece of software from
| using your model. It is not immoral, like I said, because
| it's clearly against the ToC; but it's not like OC is
| stealing anything from Anthropic by existing. It's the same
| subscription, same usage.
|
| Obviously, I have no idea what's going on internally. But it
| appears to be an issue of vanity rather than financials or
| theft. I don't think Anthropic is suffering harm from OC's
| "login" method; the correct response is to figure out why
| this other tool is better than yours and create better
| software. Shutting down the other tool, if that's what's in
| fact happening, is what is embarrassing.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| > It is embarrassing to restrict an open source tool that
| is (IMO) a strictly and very superior piece of software
| from using your model.
|
| > Shutting down the other tool, if that's what's in fact
| happening, is what is embarrassing.
|
| To rephrase it different as I feel my question didn't land.
| It's clear to me that you think it's embarrassing. And it's
| clear _what_ you think is embarrassing. I 'm trying to
| understand _why_ you think it 's embarrassing. I don't
| think it is at all.
|
| Your statements above are simply saying "X is embarrassing
| because it's embarrassing". Yes I hear that you think it's
| embarrassing but I don't think it is at all. Do you have a
| reason you can give why you think it's embarrassing? I
| think it's very wise and pretty standard to not subsidize
| people who aren't using your tool.
|
| I'm willing to consider arguments differently, but I'm not
| hearing one. Other than "it just is because it is".
| dboon wrote:
| Why do you like or dislike Diet Coke? At some point,
| saying what I think is embarrassing is equivalent to
| saying why.
|
| But, to accept your good faith olive branch, one more go:
| AI is a space full of grift and real potential.
| Anthropic's pitch is that the potential is really real.
| So real, in fact, that it will alter what it means to
| write software.
|
| It's a big claim. But a simple way to validate it would
| be to see if Anthropic themselves are producing more or
| higher quality software than the rest of the industry. If
| they aren't, something smells. The makers of the tool,
| and such a well funded and staffed company, should be the
| best at using it. And, well, Claude Code sucks. It's a
| buggy mess.
|
| Opencode, on the other hand, is not a buggy mess. It is
| one of the finest pieces of software I've used in a long
| time, and I don't mean "for a TUI". And they started
| writing it _after_ CC was _launched_. So, to finally
| answer your question: Opencode is a competitor in a way
| that brings to question Anthropic 's very innermost
| claim, the transformative nature of AI. I find it
| embarrassing to answer this question-of-sorts by limply
| nicking the competitor, rather than using their existence
| as a call for self improvement. And, Christ, OC is
| _open_. It 's open source. Anthropic could, at any time,
| go _read_ the code and do the engineering to make CC just
| as good. It is embarrassing to be beaten at your own game
| and then take away the ball.
|
| (If that is what is happening. Of course, this could be a
| misunderstanding, or a careless push to production, or
| any number of benign things. But those are uninteresting,
| so let's assume for the sake of argument that it was
| intentional).
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| Thanks, while we in the end may not agree - I do feel I
| understand your thinking now. Also agreed, we've probably
| reached the fruitful end of this discussion and this will
| be my last reply on it. I'll explain my thoughts
| similarly as you.
|
| To me it seems more akin to someone saying "I'm launching
| a restaurant. I'll give you a free meal if you come and
| give me feedback on the dish, the decor, service...".
| This happens for a bit, then after a while people start
| coming in taking the free plate and going and eating it
| at a different restaurant.
|
| To me it seems pretty reasonable to say "If you're taking
| the free meal you have to eat it here and give feedback".
|
| That said, I do acknowledge you see it very differently
| and given how you see it I understand why you feel it's
| embarrassing.
|
| Thanks for the discussion.
| _bobm wrote:
| But you are not having a free meal lunch are you? You
| _are paying_ for your meal.
|
| Worse: you are the meal as well.
|
| Do you see this?
| rocqua wrote:
| If your value proposition is: do X, and then you have to
| take action against an open source competitor for doing X
| better, that shows that you were beaten at the thing you
| tried very hard at, by people with way fewer resources.
|
| I can see why you would call that embarrassing.
| kelnos wrote:
| The competitor is not "doing X better"; it's more
| complicated than that.
|
| CC isn't just the TUI tool. It's also the LLM behind it.
| OC may have built a better TUI tool, but it's useless
| without an LLM behind it. Anthropic is certainly within
| their rights to tell people they can only integrate their
| models certain ways.
|
| And as for why this isn't embarrassing, consider that OC
| can focus 100% of their efforts on their coding tool.
| Anthropic has a lot of other balls in the air, and must
| do so to remain relevant and competitive. They're just
| not comparable businesses.
| Draiken wrote:
| > CC isn't just the TUI tool. It's also the LLM behind
| it.
|
| No, Claude Code is literally the TUI tool. The LLMs
| behind are the models. You can use different models
| within the same TUI tool, even CC allows that, regardless
| of the restriction of only using their models (because
| they chose to do that).
|
| > consider that OC can focus 100% of their efforts on
| their coding tool.
|
| And they have billions of dollars to hire full teams of
| developers to focus on it. Yet they don't.
|
| They want to give Claude Code an advantage because they
| don't want to invest as much in it and still "win", while
| they're in a position to do so. This is very similar to
| Apple forcing developers to use their apps because they
| can, not because it's better. With the caveat that
| Anthropic doesn't have a consolidated monopoly like
| Apple.
|
| Can they do that? Yes.
|
| Should they do that? It's a matter of opinion. I think
| it's a bad move.
|
| Is it embarrassing? Yes. It shows they're admitting their
| solution is worse and changing the rules of the game to
| tilt it in their favor while offering an inferior
| product. They essentially don't want to compete, they
| want to force people to use their solution due to
| pricing, not the quality of their product.
| yencabulator wrote:
| Claude Code is more than the TUI, it's the prompts, the
| agentic loop, and tools, all made to cooperate well with
| the LLM powering it. If you use Claude Code over a longer
| period of time you'll notice Anthropic changing the
| tooling and prompts underneath it to make it work better.
| By now, the model is tuned to their prompts, tools etc.
| anhner wrote:
| "Leave the multibillion dollar company alone!"
| wiseowise wrote:
| It is embarrassing, because it means they're afraid of
| competition. If CC was so great, at least a fraction of they
| sell it, they wouldn't need to do it.
| llmslave2 wrote:
| It's embarrassing because they use Claude Code to build all
| of their software and they can't write decent software to
| save their lives. Their software quality is embarrassing,
| basically Microsoft tier, which calls into question both the
| effectiveness of their AI products and Agentic workflows.
|
| Like seriously, the creator of CC claims to run 10
| simultaneous agents at once. We sure can tell bud.
| rockatanescu wrote:
| The Claude plans allow you to send a number of messages to
| Anthropic models in a specific interval without incurring any
| extra costs. From Anthropic's "About Claude's Max Plan Usage"
| page:
|
| > The number of messages you can send per session will vary
| based on the length of your messages, including the size of
| files you attach, the length of current conversation, and the
| model or feature you use. Your session-based usage limit will
| reset every five hours. If your conversations are relatively
| short and use a less compute-intensive model, with the Max
| plan at 5x more usage, you can expect to send at least 225
| messages every five hours, and with the Max plan at 20x more
| usage, at least 900 messages every five hours, often more
| depending on message length, conversation length, and
| Claude's current capacity.
|
| So it's not a "Claude Code" subscription, it's a "Claude"
| subscription.
|
| The only piece of information that might suggest that there
| are any restrictions to using your subscription to access the
| models is the part of the Pro plan description that says
| "Access Claude Code on the web and in your terminal" and the
| Max plan description that says "Everything in Pro".
| dcre wrote:
| I've used both CC and OpenCode quite a bit and while I like
| both and especially appreciate the work around OpenTUI,
| experience-wise I see almost no difference between the two.
| Maybe it's because my computer is fast and I use Ghostty, but I
| don't experience any flickering in CC. Testing now, I see
| typing is slightly less responsive in CC (very slightly: I
| never noticed until I was testing it on purpose).
|
| We will see whether OpenCode's architecture lets them move
| faster while working on the desktop and TUI versions in
| parallel, but it's so early -- you can't say that vision has
| been borne out yet.
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| inb4 Anthropic acquires Opencode
| dboon wrote:
| I actually wouldn't be _that_ surprised by this. I 'd be more
| surprised at the OC people folding (not the right word, but
| you get it) on some pretty heavy ambitions in favor of an
| acquisition.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| the right word, keeping with card playing and poker terms
| would be book a win or win the hand, scoop the pot
| xpe wrote:
| Update: Ah, I see this part: "This credential is only
| authorized for use with Claude Code and cannot be used for
| other API requests."
|
| Old comment for posterity: How do we know this was a
| strategy/policy decision versus just an engineering change?
| (Maybe the answer is obvious, but I haven't seen the source for
| it yet.) I skimmed the GitHub issue, but I didn't see
| discussion about _why_ this change happened. I don 't mean just
| the technical change; I mean _why_ Anthropic did it. Did I miss
| something?
| ChicagoDave wrote:
| Or just maybe submit feature requests instead of backdooring a
| closed source system.
| oblio wrote:
| All the TUI agents are awful at scrolling. I'm on Ubuntu
| 24.04 and both Claude Code and Gemini CLI absolutely destroy
| scrolling. I've tested Claude Code in the VS Code and it's
| better there, but in the Gnome Terminal it's plain unusable.
|
| And a lot of people are reporting scrolling issues.
|
| As someone was saying, it's like they don't have access to
| the world's best coding LLM to debug these issues.
| ChicagoDave wrote:
| I use Claude Code every day and it works perfectly fine
| outside of a few bugs (they broke ESC interrupt in 2.1).
|
| I just don't understand the misplaced anger at breaking TOS
| (even for a good reason) and getting slapped down.
|
| Like what did anyone think would happen?
|
| We all want these tools and companies to succeed. Anthropic
| needs to find profit in a few years. It's in all of our
| best interests to augment that success, not bitch because
| they're not doing it your way.
| oblio wrote:
| > We all want these tools and companies to succeed.
| Anthropic needs to find profit in a few years. It's in
| all of our best interests to augment that success, not
| bitch because they're not doing it your way.
|
| Considering they're destroying a lot of fields of
| industry, I'm not sure I want them to succeed. Are we
| sure they're making the world a better place?
|
| Or are they just concentrating wealth, like Google, Meta,
| Microsoft, Amazon, Uber, Doordash, Airbnb and all the
| other holy-tech grails in the last 20 years?
|
| Our lives are more convenient than they were 20 years ago
| and probably poorer and more stressful.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Simping for closed source software? Tsk, tsk.
| slekker wrote:
| How much do you use AI in your day? Are you a heavy user?
| Asking because your comment has a lot of "LLM mannerism"
| dboon wrote:
| No, it doesn't.
| alexeiz wrote:
| > The unfortunate truth is that the engineering in opencode is
| so far ahead of Claude Code.
|
| If only Claude Code developers had access to a powerful LLM
| that would allow them to close the engineering gap. Oh, wait...
| wiseowise wrote:
| It's a pure marketing. When will people understand that?
| llmslave2 wrote:
| Anthropic developers run 10 Claude Code instances at once,
| with unlimited access to the best models.
| cat-whisperer wrote:
| I am curious, I haven't faced any major issues using claude
| code in my daily workflow. Never noticed any flickering either.
|
| Why do you think opencode > CC? what are some
| productivity/practical implications?
| azuanrb wrote:
| Opencode has a web UI, so I can open it on my laptop and then
| resume the same session on the web from my phone through
| Tailscale. It's pretty handy from time to time and takes
| almost zero effort from me.
|
| The flickering is still happening to me. It's less frequent
| than before, but still does for long/big sessions.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| > _Anyway, this is embarrassing for Anthropic. I get that
| opencode shouldn 't have been authenticating this way. I'm not
| saying what they are doing is a rug pull, or immoral. But
| there's a reason people use this tool instead of your first
| party one. Maybe let those world class systems designers who
| created the runtime that powers opencode get their hands on
| your TUI before nicking something that is an objectively better
| product._
|
| This is nothing new, they pulled Claude models from the Trae
| editor over "security concerns." It seems like Anthropic are
| too pearl-clutching in comparison to other companies, and it
| makes sense given they started in response to thinking OpenAI
| was not safety oriented enough.
| vinhnx wrote:
| > The unfortunate truth is that the engineering in opencode is
| so far ahead of Claude Code
|
| I'm curious, what made you think of that?
| createaccount99 wrote:
| > unusual L for Anthropic
|
| Not unusual, not for Anthropic.
| kristianp wrote:
| Interesting that [1] is 30% zig as well as mostly typescript.
| That's a lot of native code for something that runs in a
| terminal (i.e. no graphical code required).
| honeyspoon wrote:
| end of an era
| galsjel wrote:
| Just open source Claude Code and maybe it gets supported by
| fostering a community... Oh wait, no lock in? Sorry there's no
| stakeholder value in that.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| The API is not banned only using the Claude Code subscription is
|
| I actually tried this several months back to do a regular API
| request using the CC subscription token and it gave the same
| error message
|
| So this software must have been pretending to be Claude Code in
| order to get around that
|
| A Claude Code subscription should not work with other software, I
| think this is totally fair
| prydt wrote:
| Came here to say this. Using opencode with the API works fine.
| ashishgupta2209 wrote:
| Same
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Yeah, you shouldn't infringe the copywrite of a tool written by
| a company which is built off of copywrite infringement.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| First of all you mean "copyright". Second of all this has
| literally nothing to do with copyright
| creativeSlumber wrote:
| > A Claude Code subscription should not work with other
| software.
|
| why not though? aren't you paying for the model usage
| regardless of the client you use?
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| That's not up to you or me. I think it's pretty clear by the
| phrase "Claude Code subscription" that it's meant for only
| "Claude Code". Why are you confused?
|
| This could be so easily abused by companies who spend
| thousands of dollars per month for API costs you could just
| reverse engineer it and use the subscription tokens to get
| that down to a few hundred
| gpm wrote:
| That phrase isn't the official one. It's "The Max Plan"
| which "combines Claude Desktop and mobile apps and Claude
| Code in one subscription".
| fastball wrote:
| Yes, so... pretty clearly not OpenCode.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| Yeah, exactly.
| casparvitch wrote:
| IDK if Anthropic wants to offer a service at below cost, I
| don't think they should gate keep which client you access
| that service over. Or in other terms, I won't use a service
| that locks me into a client I don't like.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| > IDK if Anthropic wants to offer a service at below
| cost, I don't think they should gate keep which client
| you access that service over.
|
| Are you going to say why you think they shouldn't? You
| didn't give a reason.
| firloop wrote:
| How do you draw that conclusion? If Anthropic wants to
| offer a service at below cost, they seem a lot more
| justified in restricting how and where they subsidize
| usage.
| casparvitch wrote:
| Yeah fair, I could've chosen better words. My conclusion
| is: "I don't want to pay for that", not "they shouldn't
| be able to do that".
| renewiltord wrote:
| That seems mutual. They don't want you to use this
| service with an arbitrary client and you don't want to
| use this service that won't allow an arbitrary client. So
| both of you don't want the relationship. Seems fine.
|
| For my part, I'm fine understanding that bundling allows
| for discounting and I would prefer to enable that.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| > Or in other terms, I won't use a service that locks me
| into a client I don't like.
|
| Then don't! Or just use the API which doesn't lock you
| into any client.
| potamic wrote:
| I don't think they are confused. They are simply
| challenging the assertion that the model should not work
| with other software. Which is fair because there is a lot
| of precedent around whether a service can dictate how it
| must be consumed. It's not a simple answer and there are
| good reasons for both sides. Whichever path we take will
| have wide consequences and shape our future in a very
| distinct way. So it is an important decision, and
| ultimately up to us, as a society to influence and guide.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| "challenging the assertion that the model should not work
| with other software"
|
| This has nothing to do with "the model". You can use "the
| models" through the API for anything.
|
| This has to do with access to a specific product being
| abused to then get low-cost API access for other use
| cases
| bandrami wrote:
| Can I script and scrape Claude Code to provide the exact
| same data for consumption by the banned client? (This
| sounds like an interesting challenge for Claude Code to
| try...)
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| Yes they even offer an SDK for it now so "scraping" is
| not required
| davely wrote:
| Claude Code provides a headless mode that you can do this
| exact same thing with:
|
| $ claude -p "fix the eslint in file XYZ"
| iwontberude wrote:
| It's like saying Netflix is wrong to require an official
| Netflix client to access their service. Total dud of an
| argument if you ask me.
| tadfisher wrote:
| Well, they are wrong, and the argument is still a dud.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| Netflix would not even exist if you could just freely
| download all of the media to your computer and play it
| anytime because of licensing agreements and other
| factors. So you can think that they are wrong but that's
| not really rooted in reality or practicality.
| tadfisher wrote:
| That is possible, was always possible, and will continue
| to be possible, judging by the availability of 4K rips
| available via piracy.
| conception wrote:
| But they get telemetry, feedback, good will, etc. That's one
| reason why usage is discounted to a subscription fee.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Good will, huh?
| conception wrote:
| You don't think Claude Code has generated good will for
| Anthropic? People just liking a brand is powerful.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| I don't think this move is generating good will.
| adastra22 wrote:
| They don't get any telemetry or feedback data from me, as
| I've turned all that off. So why should I be limited to CC?
| mercanlIl wrote:
| If you don't want to use CC, just use the API
| nebezb wrote:
| > aren't you paying for the model usage
|
| No, you're paying for "Claude Code" usage.
| cortesoft wrote:
| No, you are paying to use Claude code... it uses the model
| underneath, but you aren't paying for raw model usage. For
| whatever reason, Anthropic thinks this is the best way to
| divide up their market.
|
| They want to charge more for direct access to the model.
| JimmaDaRustla wrote:
| > No, you are paying to use Claude code
|
| Why would anyone pay a subscription for barebones LLM
| agent?
|
| You can beat that drum all you want, but you know it's
| bullshit. People pay the subscription for the AI, not the
| tool that consumes it. That tool being crap is why everyone
| started using third-party tools.
|
| The reason they are blocking third-party usage is they want
| developers to use only their models and no competitors.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| Is Claude Code still available on IDEs through ACP?
|
| Like https://zed.dev/docs/ai/external-agents
| lemming wrote:
| Should be, yes - ACP is basically just a different way of
| invoking the agent, so you're still using Claude Code. It's
| alternative clients like OpenCode, the CharmBracelet one and
| pi which will be affected - they basically reimplement the
| agent part and just call the API directly.
| Syzygies wrote:
| Yes. I've been using it today with Zed (a mind-blowing
| editor, by the way).
|
| One must use an API key to work through Zed, but my Max
| subscription can be used with Claude Code as an external
| agent via Zed ACP. And there's some integration; it's a
| better experience than Claude Code in a terminal next to file
| viewing in an editor.
| protocolture wrote:
| >A Claude Code subscription should not work with other
| software, I think this is totally fair
|
| Strongly disagree. They are just trying to moat.
| iwontberude wrote:
| It's a private API. What part of this is hard to understand?
| This is why you don't code against undocumented APIs with no
| contract. It's self destructive.
| sfmike wrote:
| but if something is used in CLI it makes sense it would be in
| order to be used with other things in the CLI
| JimmaDaRustla wrote:
| > A Claude Code subscription should not work with other
| software, I think this is totally fair
|
| Why the hell not? What an L take - if I pay a subscription fee
| for an API, I should be able to use that API however I want. If
| they're forcing users to only consume their APIs with a
| proprietary piece of software, it really begs what's in that
| software that makes it valuable to them. Seems like there's
| something nefarious involved.
| planckscnst wrote:
| I've been (adding an OpenCode feature that allows the LLM to edit
| its own context)[1] and trying to debug an issue with the
| Anthropic API because I'm calling it with missing fields that it
| expects. I hope my multiple erronious API calls aren't what
| triggered this decision
|
| [1]:
| https://github.com/Vibecodelicious/opencode/tree/surgical_co...
| brainless wrote:
| I know this will sound strange, but SOTA model companies will
| eventually allow subscription based usage through third-party
| tools. For any usage whatsoever.
|
| Models are pretty much democratized. I use Claude Code and
| opencode and I get more work done these days with GLM or Grok
| Code (using opencode). Z.ai (GLM) subscription is so worth it.
|
| Also, mixing models, small and large ones, is the way to go.
| Different models from different providers. This is not like cloud
| infra where you need to plan the infra use. Models are pretty
| much text in, text out (let's say for text only models). The
| minor differences in API are easy to work with.
| substackreader wrote:
| They already do it's called the API
| MeetingsBrowser wrote:
| Wouldn't this mean SOTA model companies are incentivized _not_
| to allow subscriptions through third parties?
|
| If all the models are interchangeable at the API layer,
| wouldn't they be incentivized to add value at the next level up
| and lock people in there to prevent customers from moving to
| competitors on a whim.
| brainless wrote:
| I do not know what that next level is to be honest. Web
| search, crawler, code execution, etc. can all be easily added
| on the agent side. And some of the small models are so good
| when the context is small that being locked into one provider
| makes no sense. I would rather build a heavy multi-agent
| solution, using Gemini, GLM, Sonnet, Haiku, GPT, and even use
| BERT, GlinER and other models for specific tasks. Low cost,
| no lock-in, still get high quality output.
| Majromax wrote:
| > If all the models are interchangeable at the API layer,
| wouldn't they be incentivized to add value at the next level
| up
|
| Just the other day, a 2016 article was reposted here
| [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46514816] on the 'stack
| fallacy', where companies who are experts in their domain
| repeatedly try and fail to 'move up the value chain' by
| offering higher-level products or services. The fallacy is
| that these companies underestimate the essential compexities
| of the higher-level and approach the problem with arrogance.
|
| That would seem to apply here. Why should a model-building
| company have any unique skill at building higher-level
| integration?
|
| If their edge comes from having the best model, they should
| commoditize the complement and make it as easy as possible
| for everyone to use (and pay for) their model. The standard
| API allows them to do just this, offering 'free' benefits
| from community integrations and multi-domain tasks.
|
| If their edge does not come from the model - if the models
| are interchangeable in performance and not just API - then
| the company will have deeper problems justifying its existing
| investments and securing more funding. A moat of high-level
| features might help plug a few leaks, but this entire field
| is too new to have the kind of legacy clients that keep old
| firms like IBM around.
| thorum wrote:
| AI labs are not charities and there is no way to make money
| offering unlimited access to SOTA LLMs. Even as costs drop,
| that will continue to be true for the best models in 2027, 2028
| etc. - as demonstrated by the fact that CPU time still costs
| money. The current offerings are propped up by a VC bubble and
| not sustainable.
| brainless wrote:
| I agree but that is not the issue. See the really "large"
| models are great at a few things but they are not needed for
| daily tasks, including most coding tasks. Claude Code itself
| uses Haiku for a lot of tasks.
|
| The non-SOTA companies will eat more of this pie and squeeze
| more value out of the SOTA companies.
| planet_1649c wrote:
| Damn :((
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Switched to the z.ai coding plan, and used the GLM 4.7 model for
| a few complex changes since posting this, and it works really
| well.
|
| I don't think I will renew Anthropic, the open models have
| reached an inflection point.
| casparvitch wrote:
| Maybe Anthropic saw Yegge's gas town concept and got scared off?
| striking wrote:
| I believe Gas Town uses Claude Code under the hood, still? Just
| with some really wild hooks
| casparvitch wrote:
| Oh you mean literally claude code, not some hack like
| opencode? I guess that makes sense yeah, given the tmux
| interface.
| RamtinJ95 wrote:
| I get calling opencode a hack, but actually looking at the
| product claude code is the hack compared to opencode for
| real
| jiangplus wrote:
| This reminds me of when Anthropic cut first-party access to
| Claude models in Windsurf as they were about to be acquired by
| Google.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTCoding/comments/1l2y2kh/anth...
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| They cut access because OpenAI was about to buy Windsurf. The
| moment that deal was cancelled access was returned.
| outlier99 wrote:
| they didn't even ban non claude code clients they just banned
| certain tool names that opencode uses...
|
| https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/7410#issuecomme...
| planet_1649c wrote:
| Cancelled my claude subscription over it. Opencode is miles ahead
| of any coding tools. Will stick to using it rather than claude.
| Other models / other ways to access claude exists.
| Mave83 wrote:
| same here, will cancle the subscription and move away from this
| nonsense. I want to use their LLM, not their CLI.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| Ugh, well at least this was the nudge I needed to cancel my
| Claude Pro subscription... I've already had a bad taste in my
| mouth watching the rate limits on the plan get worse and worse
| since I first subscribed and I have a few other subscriptions to
| fall back on while I've been evaluating different options. I
| literally never use the regular Claude Chat web UI either, that's
| pretty much 100% Gemini since I get it via my Google One plan.
|
| OpenCode makes me feel a lot better knowing that my workflow
| isn't completely dependent on single vendor lock-in, and I
| generally prefer the UX to Claude Code anyway.
| lemming wrote:
| This will piss a lot of people off, and seems like a strange
| move. I get that this was always a hack and against the ToS. But
| I've been paying Anthropic money every month to do exactly what I
| would have done with Claude Code, but in another harness that I
| like better. All they've achieved here is that I am no longer
| giving them money. Their per-token pricing is really expensive
| compared to OpenAI, and I like the results from the OpenAI models
| better too, they're just very slow.
|
| Here's a good benchmark from the brokk team showing the
| performance per dollar, GPT-5.1 is around half the price of Opus
| 4.5 for the same performance, it just takes twice as long.
|
| https://brokk.ai/power-ranking?dataset=openround&models=flas...
|
| So as of today, my money is going to OpenAI instead of Anthropic.
| They probably don't care though, I suspect that not many users
| are sufficiently keen on alternative harnesses to make a
| difference to their finances. But by the same token (ha ha), why
| enforce this? I don't understand why it's so important to them
| that I'm using Claude Code instead of something else.
| gbear605 wrote:
| Presumably Claude Code is a loss leader to try to lock you into
| their ecosystem or at least get you to exclusive associate "AI"
| with "Claude". So if it's not achieving those goals, they'd
| prefer if you use OpenAI instead.
| wiether wrote:
| That's my understanding and that's what I see happening at
| some places.
|
| People got a CC sub, invest on the whole tooling around CC
| (skills and whatnot) and once they're a few weeks/months in,
| they'll need a lot of convincing to even try something else.
|
| And given how often CC itself changes and they need to keep
| up with it, that's even worse. It's not just not wanting to
| get out of your confort zone, it's just trying to keep up
| with your current tools. Now if you also have to try a new
| tool every other day, the 10x productivity improvements
| claimed won't be enough to cover the lack of actual working
| hours you'll be left with in a week.
| fragmede wrote:
| > it just takes twice as long.
|
| but time is also money. Personally if I could pay more money to
| get answers faster, I'd pay double.
| casparvitch wrote:
| Unsure of the other competition, but I can vouch for
| synthetic.new's subscription for GLM (+ other open models). Note
| quite as accurate as Anthropic's models but good enough for
| basically everything I do.
| viraptor wrote:
| And it already has a workaround.
| https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/7410#issuecomme...
|
| I really don't understand why they thought this is a good idea. I
| mean I know why they wish to do this, but it's obviously not
| going to last.
| articunoJones wrote:
| fork OC and use anthropics agent SDK that allows you to build on
| top of your subscription
|
| The Agent SDK can piggyback on your existing Claude Code
| authentication
|
| https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/quickstart
| oldhead wrote:
| This headline is misleading. EDIT: Or rather was, at it has now
| been edited to be accurate.
|
| You can still bring your own Anthropic API key and use Claude in
| OpenCode.
|
| What you can no longer do is reverse engineer undocumented
| Anthropic APIs and spoof being a Claude Code client to use an
| OAuth token from a subscription-based Anthropic account.
|
| This really sucks for people who want a thriving competitive
| market of open source harnesses since BYOK API tokens mean paying
| a substantial premium to use anything but Anthropic's official
| clients.
|
| But it's hard to say it's surprising or a scandal, or anything
| terribly different from what tons of other companies have done in
| the past. I'd personally advise people to expect everything about
| using frontier coding models becoming much more pay-to-play.
| planckscnst wrote:
| The API key is not a subscription. The title says subscriptions
| are blocked from using third-party tools. Or am I
| misunderstanding?
| oldhead wrote:
| Headline's been edited since my post. It previously said
| something along the lines of "Anthropic bans API use in
| OpenCode CLI"
| barnabee wrote:
| The ideal endgame is that AI lets us build tools that make it
| impossible to tell what application or device is using their
| APIs and everything becomes open to third party clients whether
| they like it or not.
| StarterPro wrote:
| Why don't you just ask Claude Code to write you a workaround? I'm
| sure if you say "fix plz" enough times, it'll work eventually.
| pat_erichsen wrote:
| This situation feels like a +1 for Agent Client Protocol (ACP)
| [1].
|
| In ACP, you auth directly to the underlying agent (eg Claude Code
| SDK) rather than a third-party tool (eg OpenCode) that then calls
| an inference endpoint on your behalf. If you're logged into
| Claude Code, you're already logged into Claude Code through any
| ACP client.
|
| [1] https://agentclientprotocol.com/overview/agents
| articunoJones wrote:
| It works like that for the agent SDK, you could connect open
| code to that
| ares623 wrote:
| A rare glimpse into the enshittification that is to come to these
| tools. It's only a matter of time.
| Sewer56 wrote:
| Here's how to get a refund on the website (all automated):
|
| 1. Profile Icon -> Get Help
|
| 2. Send us a Message
|
| 3. Click 'Refund'
|
| Big corpos only talk money, so it's the best you could do in this
| situation.
|
| If you can't refund, and need to wait till sub runs out after
| cancelling, go to the OpenCode repo and rename your tools so they
| start with capital letters. That'll work around it. They just
| match on lowercase tool names of standard tools.
| tyfon wrote:
| That actually worked since I subscribed a few days ago
| specifically to try open code.
|
| "Your subscription has been canceled and your refund is on the
| way. Please allow 5-10 business days for the funds to appear in
| your account."
| everfrustrated wrote:
| Really useful thanks!
|
| I signed up thinking Claude Code was an IDE and really
| disappointed with it. Their plugin for vscode is complete
| trash. Way over hyped. Their models are good but I can get that
| through other ways.
| dfabulich wrote:
| For folks not following the drama: Anthropic's $200/month
| subscription for Claude Code is _much_ cheaper than Anthropic 's
| pay-as-you-go API. In a month of Claude Code, it's easy to use so
| many LLM tokens that it would have cost you more than $1,000 if
| you'd paid via the API.
|
| Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to subscribers?
| I dunno. But they _really_ want you to use the Claude Code(tm)
| CLI with that subscription, not the open-source OpenCode CLI.
| They want OpenCode users to pay API prices, which could be 5x or
| more.
|
| So, of course, OpenCode has implemented a workaround, so that
| folks paying "only" $200/month can use their preferred OpenCode
| CLI at Anthropic's all-you-can-eat token buffet.
|
| https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/7410#issuecomme...
|
| Everything about this is ridiculous, and it's all Anthropic's
| fault. Anthropic shouldn't _have_ an all-you-can-eat plan for
| $200 when their pay-as-you-go plan would cost more than $1,000+
| for comparable usage. Their subscription plans should just sell
| you API credits at, like, 20% off.
|
| More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their Claude
| Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open source it
| now.)
| casparvitch wrote:
| I guess one issue is that you pay $200/month whether you use it
| or not. Potentially this could be better for Anthropic. What
| was not necessarily foreseeable (ok maybe it was) back when
| that started was that users have invented all kinds of ways to
| supervise their agents to be as efficient as possible. If they
| control the client, you can't do that.
| isolli wrote:
| Why is supervising one's agents to be as efficient as
| possible a problem for Anthropic?
| casparvitch wrote:
| More inference = more cost (to Anthropic)
| dpark wrote:
| When people say _efficient_ here, they mean cost efficient,
| extracting as much work per dollar from Anthropic as
| possible. This is the opposite of Anthropic's view of
| efficiency, which would be providing the minimal amount of
| service for the most amount of money.
| vidarh wrote:
| I can easily get Claude Code to run for 8-10 hours
| unsupervised without stopping with sub-agents entirely within
| Claude Code.
|
| I think it is more likely that if you stick with Claude Code,
| then you are more likely to stick with Opus/Sonnet, whereas
| if you use a third party CLI you might be more likely to mix
| and match or switch away entirely. It's in their interest to
| get you invested in their tooling.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > if you use a third party CLI you might be more likely to
| mix and match or switch away entirely.
|
| I really like doing this, be it with OpenCode or Copilot or
| Cline/RooCode/KiloCode: I do have a Cerebras Code
| subscription (50 USD a month for _a lot_ of tokens but only
| an okayish model) whereas the rest I use by paying per-
| token.
|
| Monthly spend ends up being somewhere between 100-150 USD
| total, obviously depending on what I do and the proportion
| of simple vs complex tasks.
|
| If Sonnet isn't great for a given task, I can go for GPT-5
| or Gemini 3.
| vidarh wrote:
| I don't do this much because I _really_ like Opus 4.5,
| and so far I haven 't hit the limits on the $200
| subscription much, but I do have some projects where I
| might need far higher limits.
|
| As a matter of principle, I really would like the
| flexibility though, as while I love Opus _now_ , who
| knows which model I will prefer next month.
| mlrtime wrote:
| On the flip side I started using Claude with other LLMs
| (openai) because my Pro sub gets maxed out quickly and I
| want a cheaper alternative to finish a project.
|
| I just use claude code proxy or litellm and set the
| ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL to my proxy and chose another LLM.
| vidarh wrote:
| That would seem to be a very good reason for them to make
| Claude Code good enough that people would prefer doing
| that over the inverse...
|
| But also, they're a bit schizophrenic about what they
| want Claude Code to be, given you can stream JSON to/from
| Claude Code to use it as a headless backend _including
| with your subscriptions_.
| j45 wrote:
| Multi model is the way of the future though as much as I
| like and prefer Anthropic.
| dabernathy89 wrote:
| I've yet to come up with a workflow where I would want
| Claude to do this much work... unless I had an extremely
| detailed spec defined for it. How do you ensure it doesn't
| go off the rails?
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| You pretty much just said it. Define an extremely
| detailed spec. I have one that's five .md files to
| iteratively churn through. It had to be split into that
| many files since i don't want to break context length
| limits on the AI.
| ignat980 wrote:
| What kind of ways to supervise?
| denysvitali wrote:
| ralph-loop & co
| labcomputer wrote:
| > I guess one issue is that you pay $200/month whether you
| use it or not.
|
| I can easily churn through $100 in an 8 hour work day with
| API billing. $200/month seems like an incredibly good deal,
| even if they apply some throttling.
| hahahahhaah wrote:
| Anthropic and all AI are playing chicken with each other. You
| need to win userbase and that is worth losing money for but if
| you sell discount tokens for Loveable clones to profit from
| that is not in your interest.
|
| Anthropic is futher complicated by mission.
| 3abiton wrote:
| > Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to
| subscribers? I dunno. But they _really_ want you to use the
| Claude Code(tm) CLI with that subscription, not the open-source
| OpenCode CLI.
|
| Because they are harvesting all the data they can harvest
| through CLI to train further models. API access in contrast
| provides much more limited data
| eli wrote:
| Claude Code only trains on data if you opt in
| CSSer wrote:
| I used to be less cynical, but I could see them not
| honoring that, legal or not. The real answer, regardless of
| how you feel about that conversation, is that Claude Code,
| not any model, is the product.
| eli wrote:
| I couldn't. Aside from violating laws in various
| countries and opening them up to lawsuits, it would be
| extremely bad for their enterprise business if they were
| caught stealing user data.
| jrvarela56 wrote:
| If they believe it would get them AGI they would risk it.
| grumbelbart2 wrote:
| Maybe. But the data is there, imagine financial troubles,
| someone buys in and uses the data for whatever they want.
| Much like 23andme. If you want something to stay a
| secret, you don't send it to that LLM, or you use a zero-
| retention contract.
| eli wrote:
| If your threat model is "vendor willing to ignore
| contracts and laws to steal your data" I can't see how a
| zero-retention contract helps.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| You don't have to imagine, you can see it happening all
| the time. Even huge corps like FB have been already fined
| for ignoring user consent laws for data tracking, and
| thousands of smaller ones are obviously ignoring explicit
| opt in requirements in the GDPR at least.
| adastra22 wrote:
| They switched to opt out, with some extra dark patterns to
| convert people who already opted out into opting in.
| throwa356262 wrote:
| I did not know that. Could you elaborate?
| adastra22 wrote:
| New users now have to opt-out of training on their data -
| it is enabled by default. For existing users, during the
| transition they updated their terms and let you know
| about the change in policy, giving you an option to opt-
| in or opt-out. Opt-in was the default selection. Just
| today they AGAIN updated terms, presenting a click-
| through form on first load that looks like a permissions
| check (e.g. the standard dialog to enable access to the
| file system that we're conditioned to click-through). It
| was actually a terms-of-service update with opt-in
| selected by default, _even if you already explicitly
| opted out_. So if you hit enter to dismiss as you 're
| used to doing, you just switched your account over to
| opt-in.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| They've recently switched to opt-out instead. And even
| then, if you read the legalese they say "train frontier
| models". That would (probably) allow them to train a reward
| model or otherwise test/validate on your data / signals
| without breaking the agreement. There's a lot of signal in
| _how_ you use something (e.g. accepted vs. rejected rate)
| that they can use without strictly including it in the
| dataset for training their LLMs.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Claude code cli and api vs subscription are tangential. You
| can use Claude code with an api token.
| dfabulich wrote:
| As far as I know, OpenCode sends (has to send) the same data
| to Anthropic as Claude Code(tm) CLI (especially if they're
| going to successfully imitate CC(tm) in order to access cheap
| subscription pricing).
| ehsanu1 wrote:
| But I doubt you can opt in to them training on that data
| coming in via OpenCode.
| casparvitch wrote:
| I doubt you can opt out
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| You have already done that when you sign up for an
| anthropic account
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| There are additional signals that a client can send as
| telemetry that they lose if you use a 3rd party app. Things
| like accepted vs rejected sessions and so on.
| onel wrote:
| That is not true, though. You have to opt in for them to
| train on your data
| OGEnthusiast wrote:
| > More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their
| Claude Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open
| source it now.)
|
| Isn't the whole thesis behind LLM coding that you can easily
| clone the CLI using an LLM? Otherwise what are you paying
| $200/mo for?
| underdeserver wrote:
| In some sense that's what OpenCode is, and Anthropic's not
| having that.
| OGEnthusiast wrote:
| This whole thing just seems like a "I never thought the
| leopards would eat my face" by all the people who have been
| shilling LLMs non-stop.
| eli wrote:
| Doesn't seem like it has much to do with LLMs at all,
| just typical vendor lock-in nonsense like how Apple's own
| apps get entitlements not available to any other
| developer.
| Xevion wrote:
| > Anthropic shouldn't have an all-you-can-eat plan for $200
| when their pay-as-you-go plan would cost more than $1,000+ for
| comparable usage. Their subscription plans should just sell you
| API credits at, like, 20% off.
|
| Sorry, I don't understand this. Either you're saying
|
| A) Everyone paying $200/mo should now pay $800/mo to match this
| 20% off figure you're theorizing... or B) Maybe you're implying
| that the $1,000+ costs are too high and they should be lowered,
| to like, what, $250/mo? (250 - 20% = $200)
|
| Which confuses me, because neither option is feasible or ever
| gonna happen.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Not the OP, but it seems pretty clear to me - they're
| suggesting that fixed per-month pricing with unlimited usage
| shouldn't exist at all, as it doesn't really make sense for a
| product that has per token costs.
|
| Instead, they're saying that a 200$/month subscription should
| pay for something like $250 worth of pay-per-token API
| tokens, and additionally give preferential pricing for using
| up more tokens than that.
|
| So, if the normal API pricing were 10$ per million tokens, a
| 200$ per month subscription should offer 25M tokens for free,
| and allow you to use more tokens at a 9$/1M token rate. This
| way, if you used 50M tokens in a month, you'd pay 445$ with a
| subscription, versus paying 500$ with pay-as-you-go. This is
| still a good discount, but doesn't create perverse
| incentives, as the current model does.
| sheepscreek wrote:
| Update: Touche. The repo is just plugins and skills, not the
| meat.
|
| In any case, another workaround would be using ACP that's
| supported by Zed. Let's editing tools access the power of CLI
| agents directly.
|
| ------
|
| > Anthropic should have open sourced their Claude Code CLI a
| year ago
|
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code
|
| It has been open source for a while now. Probably 4-6 months.
|
| > Anthropic shouldn't have an all-you-can-eat plan for $200
| when their pay-as-you-go plan would cost more than $1,000+ for
| comparable usage. Their subscription plans should just sell you
| API credits at, like, 20% off.
|
| That's a very odd thing to wish for. I love my subscriptions
| and wouldn't have it any other way.
| baby wrote:
| You can't use it as an SDK though, unlike codex
| adastra22 wrote:
| You can though?
|
| https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/overview
| baby wrote:
| That's to build your own agent, similar to the openai
| agent sdk
| ukuina wrote:
| That repo does not contain the source code for Claude Code.
| dboon wrote:
| If you're going to link a repository, you should read it
| first. That repository is just a couple plugins and community
| links. Claude Code is, and always has been, completely closed
| source.
| baby wrote:
| Aren't you happy that you can use claude code unlimited for
| only 200/month? I don't really get your point tbh
| Aurornis wrote:
| I'd bet almost everyone who opts to buy the $200 plan is
| happy with the deal they're getting relative to API pricing.
|
| I think some people get triggered by the inconsistency in
| pricing or the idea of having a fixed cost for somewhat vague
| usage limits.
|
| In practice it's a great deal for anyone using the model at
| that level.
| piokoch wrote:
| It is not unlimited, being not careful with your context
| management, you hit the limits quickly.
| abhijat wrote:
| Isn't the context window the same for all plans, 200k? You
| would hit usage limits?
| billyjobob wrote:
| If you send the full 200k tokens on every request you
| will get very few requests before you hit the token
| limit. Caching reduces the number sent but I don't know
| how much they can cache?
| mannanj wrote:
| How is it different from what OpenAI and Codex, and Gemini
| offer?
| krembo wrote:
| I wonder how are these pricings compared to running Claude over
| bedrock
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| The price is the same whether you run it on Bedrock or
| Anthropic....
| bakugo wrote:
| > Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to
| subscribers? I dunno
|
| I do, it's called vendor lock-in. The product they're trying to
| sell is not the $200 subscription, it's the entire Claude Code
| ecosystem.
|
| For the average person, the words "AI" and "ChatGPT" are
| synonims. OpenAI's competitors have long conceded this loss,
| and for the most part, they're not even trying to compete,
| because it's clear to everyone that there is no clear path to
| monetization in this market - the average joe isn't going to
| pay for a $100/mo subscription to ask a chatbot to do their
| homework or write a chocolate cake recipe, so good luck making
| money there.
|
| The programming market is an entirely different story, though.
| It's clear that corporations are willing to pay decent money to
| replace human programmers with a service that does their work
| in a fraction of the time (and even the programmers themselves
| are willing to pay independently to do less work, even if it
| will ultimately make them obsolete), and they don't care enough
| about quality for that to be an issue. So everyone is currently
| racing to capture this potentially profitable market, and
| Claude Code is Anthropic's take on this.
|
| Simply selling the subscription on its own without any lock-in
| isn't the goal, because it's clearly not profitable, nor is it
| currently meant to be, it's a loss leader. The actual goal is
| to get people invested long-term in the Claude Code ecosystem
| as a whole, so that when the financial reality catches up to
| the hype and prices have to go up 5x to start making real
| money, those people feel compelled to keep paying, instead of
| seeking out cheaper alternatives, or simply giving up on the
| whole idea. This is why using the subscription as an API for
| other apps isn't allowed, why Claude Code is closed source, why
| it doesn't support third party OpenAI-compatible APIs, and why
| it reads a file called CLAUDE.md instead of something more
| generic.
| iamkonstantin wrote:
| What's ridiculous is that the subscription at 180EUR/month
| (excl. VAT) is already absurdly expensive for what you get. I
| doubt many would sign up for the per-API usage as it's just not
| sustainable pricing (as a user).
| thunfischtoast wrote:
| That entirely depends on your business case. If that call
| costing 50 Cent has done something for me which would have
| taken me more than 1 minute of paid working time to do it's
| sustainable.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| For the bizarre amount of work that gets done for that 180
| euro, it is really cheap. We are just getting used to it and
| sinking prices everywhere, it is just that CC is the best
| (might be taste or bias, I at least think so), so we are
| staying with it for now. If it gets more expensive, we will
| go and try others for production instead of just trying them
| to get a feel for the competition as we do now.
| baq wrote:
| It pays for itself in a day for some folks. It is a lot but
| it's still cheap.
| elAhmo wrote:
| This take is ridiculous. Nearly everyone who uses Max agrees
| that what they get for the money paid is an amazing deal. If
| you don't use or understand how LLMs fit in your workflows,
| you are not the target customer. But for people who use it
| daily, it is a relatively small investment compared to the
| time saved.
| Majromax wrote:
| > If you don't use or understand how LLMs fit in your
| workflows, you are not the target customer.
|
| I feel like this is a major area of divergence. The "vibes"
| are bifurcating between "coding agents are great!" and
| "coding agents are all hype!", with increasing levels of
| in-group communication.
|
| How should I, an agent-curious user, begin to unravel this
| mess if $200 is significantly more than pocket change? The
| pro-agent camp remarks that these frontier models are
| qualitatively better and using older/cheaper approaches
| would give a misleading impression, so "buy the discount
| agent" doesn't even seem like a reasonable starting point.
| 12345hn6789 wrote:
| The$20 plan exists for a reason. If you're interested you
| can give it a whirl.
| globular-toast wrote:
| > More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their
| Claude Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open
| source it now.)
|
| I assume they're embarrassed by it. Didn't one of their devs
| recently say it's 100% vibe coded?
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| By this logic ChatGPT shouldn't exist either and should be
| charged by API pricing
| wooger wrote:
| It's hard to understand what Anthropic are getting from forcing
| more people to use Claude Code vs any other tools via the API.
| Why do they care? Do they somehow get better analytics or do
| they dream that there's a magical lock-in effect... from a
| buggy CLI?
| elAhmo wrote:
| Not that hard to understand, they want to control how their
| users use their product. A CLI they built, even acquiring the
| framework it was built in, is a way to achieve that.
| touristtam wrote:
| But to make a "gauche" analogy, that would be like
| Microsoft not letting you browse their websites without
| using their browser (Edge).
| weikju wrote:
| Don't give them any ideas!
| fragmede wrote:
| ActiveX has entered the chat.
| sho wrote:
| I suspect that they lose control over the cheaper models CC
| can choose for you for eg. file summaries or web fetch.
| Indeed, they lose web fetch and whatever telemetry it gives
| them completely.
|
| It's not unreasonable to assume that without the ability to
| push haiku use aggresively for summarization, the average
| user in OC vs CC costs more.
| oidar wrote:
| This is a very good point. If the 3rd party tools are using
| opus for compacting/summarizing - that would increase
| inference costs for anthropic.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| It's because the model companies believe there's no way to
| survive just selling a model via an API. That is becoming a
| low margin, undifferentiated commodity business that can't
| yield the large revenue streams they need to justify the
| investments. The differences between models just aren't large
| enough and the practice of giving model weights away for free
| (dumping) is killing that business.
|
| So they all want to be product companies. OpenAI is able to
| keep raising crazy amounts of capital because they're a
| product company and the API is a sideshow. Anthropic got
| squeezed because Altman launched ChatGPT first for free and
| immediately claimed the entire market, meaning Anthropic
| became an undifferentiated Bing-like also-ran until the
| moment they launched Claude Code and had something unique.
| For consumer use Claude still languishes but when it comes to
| coding and the enormous consumption programmers rack up,
| OpenAI is the one cloning Claude Code rather than the other
| way around.
|
| For Claude Code to be worth anything to Anthropic's investors
| it _must_ be a product and not just an API pricing tier. If
| it 's a product they have so many more options. They can e.g.
| include ads, charge for corporate SSO integrations, charge
| extra for more features, add social features... I'm sure they
| have a thousand ideas, all of which require controlling the
| user interface and product surface.
|
| That's the entire reason they're willing to engage in their
| own market dumping by underpricing tokens when consumed via
| their CLI/web tooling: build up product loyalty that can then
| be leveraged into further revenue streams beyond paying for
| tokens. That strategy doesn't work if anyone can just emulate
| the Claude Code CLI at the wire level. It'd mean Anthropic
| buys market share for their own competitors.
|
| N.B. this kind of situation is _super common_ in the tech
| industry. If you 've ever looked at Google's properties
| you'll discover they're all locked behind Javascript
| challenges that verify you're using a real web browser. The
| features and pricing of the APIs is usually very different to
| what consumers can access via their web browser and technical
| tricks are used to segment that market. That's why SERP
| scraping is a SaaS (it's far too hard to do directly yourself
| at scale, has to be outsourced now), and why Google is suing
| them for bypassing "SearchGuard", which appears to just be
| BotGuard rebranded. I designed the first version of BotGuard
| and the reason they use it on every surface now, and not just
| for antispam, is because businesses require the ability to
| segment API traffic that might be generated by competitors
| from end user/human traffic generated by their own products.
|
| If Anthropic want to continue with this strategy they'll need
| to do the same thing. They'll need to build what is
| effectively an anti-abuse team similar to the BotGuard team
| at Google or the VAC team at Valve, people specialized in
| client integrity techniques and who have experience in
| detecting emulators over the network.
| 0x500x79 wrote:
| DAU/MAU for IPO.
| moltar wrote:
| To extend your all you can eat analogy. It's similar to how all
| you can eat restaurants allow you to eat all you can within the
| bounds of the restaurant, but you aren't allowed to bring the
| food out with you.
| jbstack wrote:
| It's not really a fair analogy. Restaurants don't want you
| taking food away because they want to limit the amount you
| eat to a single meal, knowing that you'll stop when you get
| full. If you take food out you can eat more by waiting until
| the next meal when you're hungry again.
|
| You don't "get full" and "get hungry again" by switching UIs.
| You can consume the same amount whether you switch or you
| don't switch.
| samrolken wrote:
| Claude Code does a lot of work in optimizing context usage,
| how much output is included by tools and how that's done,
| and when to compact. This very well may make the cost of
| providing the subscription lower to Anthropic when Claude
| Code is used. It's well within the realm of possibility if
| not likelihood that other tools don't have the same
| incentive to optimize the buffet usage.
|
| Not sure where that goes in the analogies here but maybe
| something about smaller plates.
| dpark wrote:
| > You don't "get full" and "get hungry again" by switching
| UIs. You can consume the same amount whether you switch or
| you don't switch.
|
| This is actually a compelling argument for Claude Code
| getting the discount but not extending it to other cases.
| Claude Code, being subsidized by the company, is
| incentivized to minimize token usage. Third parties that
| piggyback on the same flat rate subscription, are not. i.e.
| Claude code _wants_ you to eat less.
|
| Of course, I don't believe at all that this is why
| Anthropic has blocked this use case. But it is a reasonable
| argument.
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| The UI absolutely could influence the backend usage.
|
| Think about a web browser that respects cache lifetimes vs
| one that downloads everything everytime. As an ISP I'd be
| more likely to offer you unlimited bandwidth if I knew you
| were using a caching browser.
|
| Likewise Claude code can optimize how it uses tokens and
| potentially provide the same benefit with less usage.
| dfabulich wrote:
| Not really. At a buffet restaurant, if you could take the
| food out with you, you'd takeaway more food than you can eat
| at one sitting. OpenCode users and Claud Code(tm) CLI users
| use tokens at approximately the same rate.
|
| This is more like an all-you-can-eat restaurant requiring you
| to eat with their flimsy plastic forks, forbidding you to
| bring your own utensils.
| whatsupdog wrote:
| Why is this being downvoted? This is the perfect analogy.
| snackdex wrote:
| yes with the whole goal to make the utensils better
| samrolken wrote:
| Claude Code does a lot regarding optimizing context usage,
| tool output, sub-agent interactions, context compaction,
| and stuff like that. I don't imagine OpenCode has the same
| financial incentive to decrease the token cost Anthropic
| takes on under the subscriptions.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| ...no, that's more like "but you can't bring your own fork"
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| Another analogy is that it's a takeout but anthropic is
| insisting you only eat at home with the plastic utensils
| they've provided rather than the nice metal utensils you have
| at home.
|
| Another analogy is that it's a restaurant that offers
| delivery and they're insisting you use their own in house
| delivery service instead of placing a pickup order and asking
| your friendly neighbor to pick it up for you on their way
| back from the office.
| savanaly wrote:
| The all you can eat buffet analogy makes way more sense to
| me, because it speaks to the aspect of it where the
| customer can take a lot of something without restriction.
| That's the critical thing with the Anthropic subscription,
| and the takeout analogy or delivery service don't contain
| any element of it.
| darepublic wrote:
| anthropic should not be criticizing the gluttony of others
| whilst licking its fingers surrounded by buckets full of
| fried chicken
| icsrutil wrote:
| > They can and should just open source it now
|
| Why you have this idea? why they should open source it now?
| piokoch wrote:
| My problem with CC is that it is trying to be very creative. I
| am asking it to fix some test, or create a new test. What it is
| doing? It is running grep to find all tests in the code base
| and parses them. This eats a lot of tokens.
|
| Then it runs the test, as if I could not do this myself, it
| reads the output, sometimes very long (so more and more tokens
| are burned) and so on.
|
| If people had to pay for this cleverness and creativity an API
| price, they would be a bit shocked and give up quickly CC.
|
| Using Aider with Claude Sonnet I am eating much less tokens
| than CC does.
| llmslave2 wrote:
| > More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their
| Claude Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open
| source it now.)
|
| Who cares? Just have Claude vibe code it in an afternoon...
| kar1181 wrote:
| Anthropic want you to use claude code cli badly and are
| prepared to be very generous if you do. People want to take
| that generosity without the reciprocity.
|
| I don't normally like to come down on the side of the
| megabigcorp but in this case anthropic aren't being evil. Not
| yet anyway.
| redbluered wrote:
| I think they are.
|
| The key question is about why they want to you to use the
| CLI. If you're not the customer, you're the product.
|
| There's also a monopolistic aspect to this. Having the best
| model isn't something over can legally exploit to gain
| advantage in adjacent markets.
|
| It reeks of "Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run,"
| Windows showing spurious error messages for DR-DOS, and
| Borland C++ losing to the then-inferior Visual C++ due to
| late support of new Windows features. And Internet Explorer
| bundling versus Netscape.
|
| Yes, Microsoft badly wanted you to use Office, Visual C++,
| MS-DOS, and IE, but using Windows to get that was illegal.
|
| Microsoft lost in court, paid a nominal fine, and executives
| were crying all the way to the bank.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| _If you 're not the customer, you're the product._
|
| You are the customer, you're paying them directly.
| dheatov wrote:
| Assuming the actual price for many user is closer to 1k
| USD/mth than to 200 USD/mth, and the actual price is closer
| to their target margin to be a viable business, they're
| practically subsidising usage after 200 USD/mth. Together
| with other AI-TECH doing the same, they fabricate a false
| sense of "AI is capable AND affordable", which imo is evil.
| vovavili wrote:
| There is nothing evil about prioritizing customer
| acquisition over immediate profit.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| And yet in many cases there are regulations against it.
| Almost as though behavior that warps the market is
| generally undesirable.
| vovavili wrote:
| Give me an example of one such regulation.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Are you sure you're participating in good faith? I'll go
| ahead and indulge you for the benefit of the audience
| though.
|
| The generic term is predatory pricing and it's regulated
| to some extent in pretty much every country. https://en.w
| ikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#Legal_aspect...
|
| When carried out at the international level it's known as
| dumping. The WTO has provisions against it. https://en.wi
| kipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)#Legal...
| keeda wrote:
| As the Wikipedia page calls out, predatory pricing is
| generally in the context of a dominant firm throwing
| their weight around to dominate the market. You could
| make this case against large incumbents like Microsoft
| and Google, but Anthropic is actually the upstart here.
|
| In any case, all this depends on how you define the
| "market", and the entire market for AI-assisted coding is
| very nascent and fast-moving to make any reliable calls
| about dominance at this point.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| That's the context where it tends to get regulated.
| Indeed it doesn't apply to Anthropic. Neither is
| Anthropic a party to the WTO.
|
| I was asked for examples of behavior that distorts the
| market being regulated and provided two of them. There
| are other examples out there as well.
| realharo wrote:
| Well they are doing the same to website owners who rely on
| human visitors for their revenue streams.
|
| Both scraping and on-demand agent-driven interactions erode
| that. So you could look at people doing the same to them as a
| sort of poetic justice, from a purely moral standpoint at
| least.
| danmaz74 wrote:
| > More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their
| Claude Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open
| source it now.)
|
| "Should have" for what reason? I would be happy if they open
| sourced Claude Code, but the reality is that Claude Code is
| what makes Anthropic so relevant in the programming more, much
| more than the Claude models themselves. Asking them to give it
| away for free to their competitors seems a bit much.
| mrbungie wrote:
| Well OpenCode already exists and you can connect it to
| multiple providers, so you could just say that the agentic
| CLI harness business model as a service/billable feature is
| no more. In hindsight I would say it never made sense in the
| first place.
| danmaz74 wrote:
| When I compared OpenCode and Claude Code head to head a
| couple of months ago, Claude Code worked much better for
| me. I don't know if they closed the gap in the meantime,
| but for sure Claude Code has improved since then.
| vmg12 wrote:
| OpenCode launched a couple of months ago so that makes
| sense that it's worse. It's much better than Claude Code
| now. Somehow for the same model, opencode completes the
| same work faster than claude code and the ux is much
| better.
| rovr138 wrote:
| You win by adoption.
|
| Here adoption is a combination on the tool and the model.
|
| If people can't pay the model to use the tool, they might
| not use the tool even if it's better.
|
| That's what anthropic is doing.
|
| It might be faster, but it's more expensive.
| aatd86 wrote:
| There is no loyalty. They eho have the best models win.
|
| The only way remains to try and lock consumers into your
| ecosystem.
| vmg12 wrote:
| Meant to say "it was worse" not "it's worse"
| xpe wrote:
| The above does not prove that it is irrational for
| Anthropic to keep the Claude Code source code closed. There
| are many reasons I can see (and probably some I can't) for
| why closed source is advantageous for A\\. One such
| (mentioned in various places) is the value-add of certain
| kinds of analytics and or telemetry.
|
| Aside: it is pretty easy to let our appreciation* of OSS
| turn into a kind of confirmation bias about its value to
| other people/orgs.
|
| * I can understand why people promote OSS from various
| POVs: ethics, security, end user control, ecosystem
| innovation, sheer generosity, promotion of goodwill,
| expressions of creativity, helping others, the love of
| building things, and much more. I value all of these
| things. But I'm wary of reasoning and philosophies that
| offer merely binary judgments, especially ones that try to
| claim what is best for another party. That's really hard to
| know so we do well to be humble about our claims.**
|
| **: Finally, being humble about what one knows does not
| mean being "timid" with your logic or reasoning. Just be
| sure to state it as clearly as you can by mentioning your
| premises and values.
| rovr138 wrote:
| Except that the cost is better with their harness and looks
| like people don't want to fork 5x.
|
| Adoption is how one wins. Look at all the crappy solutions
| out there that are still around.
| sbarre wrote:
| Branding and customer relationships matter as much or more
| than the "billable service" part of Claude Code.
|
| It's not unheard of for companies that have strong customer
| mindshare to find themselves intermediated by competitors
| or other products to the point that they just became part
| of the infrastructure and eventually lose that mindshare.
|
| I doubt Anthropic wants to become a swappable backend for
| the actual thing that developers reach for to do their work
| (the CLI tool).
|
| Don't get me wrong, I think developers should 100% have the
| choice of tooling they want to use.
|
| But from a business standpoint I think maintaining that
| direct or first-party connection to the developer is what
| Anthropic are trying to protect here.
| reactordev wrote:
| Claude code is nothing more than a loop to Opus.
| sirtaj wrote:
| I use Q/aka kiro-cli at work with opus and it's clearly
| inferior to CC within the first 30s or so of usage. So no,
| not quite
| elfly wrote:
| Kiro is such a disaster. It starts well with all the
| planning, but I haven't been able to control it. It
| changes files on a whim and changes opinion from
| paragraph to paragraph.
|
| Also it uses the Claude models but afaik it is constantly
| changing which one is using depending on the perceived
| difficulty.
| cobolcomesback wrote:
| > it uses the Claude models but afaik it is constantly
| changing which one is using depending on the perceived
| difficulty
|
| Claude Code does the same. You can disable it in Kiro by
| specifically setting the model to what you want rather
| than "auto" using /model.
|
| Tbh I've found Kiro to be much better than Claude Code.
| The actual quality of results seems about the same, but
| I've had multiple instances where Claude Code get stuck
| because of errors making tool calls whereas Kiro just
| works. Personally I also just prefer the simplicity of
| Kiro's UX over CC's relative "flashy" TUI.
| altmanaltman wrote:
| > the reality is that Claude Code is what makes Anthropic so
| relevant in the programming more, much more than the Claude
| models themselves
|
| but Claude Code cannot run without Claude models? What do you
| mean?
| boh wrote:
| Relative to their competitors who also have comparable
| models, Anthropic's design choices in effectively managing
| context with a very well thought out and coherent design,
| makes them stand out.
| dkdcio wrote:
| (i.e. competitors can still use Claude models but haven't
| achieved the same DevEx as CC so far, at least in my
| opinion and many others)
|
| also while I was initially on the "they should open
| source" boat, and I'm happy Codex CLI did, there are a
| ton of benefits to keeping to closed source. just look at
| how much spam and dumb community drama OpenAI employees
| now have to deal with on GitHub. I increasingly think
| it's a smart moved to keep it closed source and iterate
| without as direct community involvement on the codebase
| for now
| rovr138 wrote:
| They could open source and not take contributions fwiw.
|
| They could close the issues and only allow discussions.
|
| There was a project mentioned here recently that did just
| that.
|
| *Edit
|
| It was Ghostty,
|
| "Why users cannot create Issues directly" -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46460319
| joelwilliamson wrote:
| They could open source it and not even have a Github
| project associated. Just provide a read-only git repo on
| anthropic.com or drop a source tarball every release.
| hxugufjfjf wrote:
| Then a ton of vibe-coded Claude Code forks out of their
| control would pop up on GitHub and people would be even
| more frustrated at Anthropic for not fixing their issues.
| F7F7F7 wrote:
| If you enjoy working out of the terminal and CLI/TUI's
| then it's not even close. Gemini, Codex, CoPilot, and
| every other CLI I can think of are awful. Stumbling,
| bumbling and you'd be lucky to keep your file tree in
| tact even with tight permissions (short of a sandbox).
|
| Claude Code feels like my early days when pair
| programming was all the rage.
|
| If you have the time OpenCode comes the closest and lets
| you work across providers seamless.
| kurtis_reed wrote:
| https://github.com/musistudio/claude-code-router
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Yeah, I've heard of people swapping out the model that Claude
| Code calls and apparently its not THAT much of a difference.
| What I'd love to see from Anthropic instead is, give me
| smaller LLM models, I don't even care if they're "open
| source" or not, just pull down a model that takes maybe 4 or
| 6 GB of VRAM into my local box, and use those for your coding
| agents, you can direct it and guide it with Opus anyway, so
| why not cut down on costs for everyone (consumer and
| Anthropic themselves!) by just letting users who can run some
| of the compute locally. I've got about 16GB of VRAM I can
| juice out of my Macbook Pro, I'm okay running a few smaller
| models locally with the guiding hand of Opus or Sonnet for
| less compute on the API front.
| tacoooooooo wrote:
| not sure there are any models yet that you can get the
| quality out you need to do this and run on your mbp
| motbus3 wrote:
| Anthropic might have good models, but they are the worse. I
| mentioned in another thread how they do whatever they can
| to bypass bot detection protection to scrap content.
| labcomputer wrote:
| So, like, why don't people just use the better-than-Claude
| OpenCode CLI with these other just-as-good-as-Claude
| models?
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| It is and was open source from the start?
|
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code
| c0balt wrote:
| Unless I'm severely mistaken that's not the source code for
| claude-code. It's a few official plugins and some helper
| scripts
| vovavili wrote:
| Look a bit closer to the contents of this repo. There is
| basically no code.
| skerit wrote:
| > Anthropic shouldn't have an all-you-can-eat plan for $200
| when their pay-as-you-go plan would cost more than $1,000+ for
| comparable usage. Their subscription plans should just sell you
| API credits at, like, 20% off
|
| I have the "all-you-can-eat" plan _because_ I know what I'm
| getting and how much it'll cost me.
|
| I don't see anything wrong with this. It's just a big time-
| limited amount of tokens you can use. Of course it sucks that
| it's limited to Claude-Code and Claude.ai. But the other
| providers have very similar subscriptions. Even the original
| ChatGTP pro subscription gives you a lot more tokens for the
| $20 it costs compared to the API cost.
|
| I always assumed tokens over the API cost that much, because
| that's just what people are willing to pay. And what people are
| willing to pay for small pay-as-you-go tasks vs large-scale
| agentic coding just doesn't line up.
|
| And then there's the psychological factor: if Claude messed up
| and wasted a bunch of tokens, I'm going to be super pissed that
| those specific tokens will have cost me $30. But when it's just
| a little blip on my usage limit, I don't really mind.
| juped wrote:
| I'm baffled that people, unknown to me, have apparently been
| considering Claude Code, the program, some kind of "secret
| sauce". It's a tool harness. Claude could one-shot write it for
| you, lol.
| rolymath wrote:
| What an incredibly entitled message. If you know what anthropic
| should and shouldn't do, go start your own AI company.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Right? Lots of "Anthropic should do x because that's what
| makes sense to me".
| j45 wrote:
| Claude Code is unusually efficient in the use if tokens in top
| of it all.
| steveharman wrote:
| I believe there are a number of cli tools which also use
| Anthropic's Max plan (subscription) - this isn't just an
| OpenCode issue.
|
| I had the TaskMaster AI tool hooked up to my Anthropic sub, as
| well as a couple of other things - Kilo Code and and Roo Code
| iirc?
|
| From discussions at the time (6 months ago) this "use your
| Anthropic sub" functionality was listed by at least one of the
| above projects as "thanks to the functionality of the Anthropic
| SDK you can now use your sub...." implying it was officially
| sanctioned rather than via a "workaround".
| reactordev wrote:
| It's all about the data.
|
| They want you to use their tool so they can collect data.
| adam_patarino wrote:
| They are subsidizing Claude code so they can use your data to
| train better coding models. You're paying them to show their
| models how to code better.
| stemlord wrote:
| If true I wonder what kind of feedback loop is happening by
| training on human behavior that's directly influenced by the
| output of the same model
| adam_patarino wrote:
| We build our fine tuning and reinforcement pipeline at
| cortex.build by synthesizing interactions between a user,
| the agent loops, and a codebase. The exact data they get
| from users in Claude Code.
|
| That data is critical to improve tool call use (both in
| correctness but also to improve when the agent chooses to
| use that tool). It's also important for the context
| rewrites Claude does. They rewrite your prompt and
| continuously manage the back-and-forth with the model. So
| does Cortex, just more aggressively with a more powerful
| context graph.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| What part of a TOS is ridiculous? Claude Code is obviously a
| loss leader to them, but developer momentum / market share is
| important to them and they consider it worth it.
|
| What part of "OpenCode broke the TOS of something well defined"
| makes you think it's all Anthropic's fault?
| mnky9800n wrote:
| My guess is that ultimately the use of Claude code will
| provide the training data to make most of what you do now in
| Claude code irrelevant.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Poor behavior is still poor behavior even if the relevant ToS
| aligns with it.
| anamexis wrote:
| Why is it poor behavior though?
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Restricting users from using third party tools is
| commonly viewed as poor behavior. I'm not inclined to
| rehash that debate here, although I might respond to
| specific (contextually relevant) counterpoints if you
| feel like making them.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Do you think Anthropic followed all the ToS of every website
| on the internet when scraping them for training data?
| rovr138 wrote:
| You justify a wrong thing by attacking something else? Is
| that the only argument?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| I don't feel any need to behave respectfully toward
| people or institutions that clearly don't respect me.
| landl0rd wrote:
| It's probably not a "loss-leader" so much as "somewhat lower
| margin". Their bizdev guys are doubtless happy to make a
| switch between lower-margin, higher-multiple recurring
| revenue versus higher-margin, lower-multiple pay-as-you-go
| API billing. Corporate customers with contracts doubtless
| aren't paying like that for the API either. This is not
| uncommon.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| When you have a "loss leader" whose sole purpose is to build
| up market share (e.g. put competitors out of business) that's
| called predatory pricing.
| anamexis wrote:
| Every loss leader's purpose is to build up market share.
| epolanski wrote:
| I keep hearing those claims that's they lose money on it, but
| I have more and more doubts about this being true.
|
| GPU compute cost has falled down in the last two years a lot.
| mirzap wrote:
| I tend to think that their margins on API pricing are
| significantly higher. They likely gave up some of that margin
| to grow the Claude Code user base, though it probably still
| runs at a thin profit. Businesses are simply better customers
| than individuals and are willing to pay much more.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| > More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their
| Claude Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open
| source it now.)
|
| It's not like if it houses some top secret AI models inside of
| it, and it would make way more sense, and probably expand the
| capabilities of Claude Code itself. Do they lose out to having
| OpenAI or other competitors basically stealing their approach?
| motbus3 wrote:
| I guess we will find out on the updated TOCs very soon
| heliumtera wrote:
| >But they really want you to use the Claude Code(tm)
|
| They definitely want their absolutely proprietary software with
| sudo privilege on your machine. I wonder why they would want
| that geeez
| rovr138 wrote:
| it doesn't need sudo privileges...
| heliumtera wrote:
| Yeah, it is not necessary. Being able to run unprivileged
| commands on millions of machines is already a stupidly
| powerful thing
| dathinab wrote:
| I guess it's another case of:
|
| - effective moneytizeability of a lot of AI products seem
| questionable
|
| - so AI cost strongly subsidized in all kinds of ways
|
| - which is causing all kind of strange dynamics and is very
| much incompatible with "free market self regulation" (hence why
| a company long term running by investor money _and_ under-
| pricing any competition which isn't subsidized is theoretically
| not legal (in the US). Not that the US seem to care to actually
| run a functioning self regulating free market, even going back
| as far as Amazone. Turns out moving "state subsidized" to
| "subsidized by rich" somehow makes it no longer problematic /
| anti-free-market /non-liberal ... /s))
| xtiansimon wrote:
| Sorry, ClaudeCode is $200/mo? I'm not using it now, but was
| thinking about giving it a try. The website shows $200/year for
| Pro:
|
| "$17 Per month with annual subscription discount ($200 billed
| up front). $20 if billed monthly."
|
| https://claude.com/pricing
|
| What are you referring to that's 10x that price? (Conversely,
| I'm wondering why Pro costs 1/10 the value of whatever you're
| referring to?!?)
| vadansky wrote:
| Keep scrolling down, there is a Max option
| crassus_ed wrote:
| I got a pro subscription yesterday. With it you get a certain
| amount of tokens and you have a certain limit every 5 hours
| and every week.
|
| Once the limit is reached, you can choose to pay-per-token,
| upgrade your plan, or just wait until it refreshes. The more
| expensive subscription variants just contain more tokens,
| that's all.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| They don't exactly put it front and center. Click "usage
| limits" (at the bottom;
| https://support.claude.com/en/articles/9797557-usage-
| limit-b...) then "Max plan" in the first list
| (https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11014257-about-
| claude...). There is a $200/mo price which people are likely
| referring to with "20x more usage per session" (which kinda
| bothers me because I'd bet my bottom dollar it's 20x "as
| much" but that's a lost cause).
| rienbdj wrote:
| What can we learn from this?
|
| _The model is not a moat_
|
| They need to own the point of interaction to drive company
| valuation. Users can more about tool switching costs that the
| particular model they use.
| parliament32 wrote:
| > let's sell a loss leader
|
| > oh no, people are actually buying the loss leader
|
| I'm looking forward to the upcoming reckoning when all these AI
| companies start actually charging users what the services cost.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| I see zero reason to believe the $200 subscription is losing
| money. Anthropic makes subscriptions cheaper because 1. Most
| users dont use all their allocated tokens 2. subscriptions
| create a lock in effect, even if its a weak one 3. Easier to
| raise money when you can point to your ARR from subscriptions
| 4. Lowering revenue variance month to month is very valuable
| for businesses
| arbirk wrote:
| I agree with the principle, but reality dictates that users and
| exposure is the real currency. So while annoying it is
| understandable that Anthropic subsidizes their own direct
| users.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| > Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to
| subscribers?
|
| Most subscribers dont use up all their allocated tokens. Theyre
| banning these third parties because they consistently do use
| all their allocated tokens.
| ehsanu1 wrote:
| I understand them not wanting to allow non-coding agents to use
| the subscription, but why specifically block another coding
| agent? Is the value Anthropic gets from users specifically using
| claude code that high? Is it about the training data opt-ins?
| ChaseRensberger wrote:
| Wow, i sat down to do a little bit of late night coding and ended
| up running into this nightmare. Just canceled my anthropic
| subscription and started paying for opencode zen. Unfortunately
| opencode is enough of a better product i will indeed pay 10 times
| the price to use it.
| ChaseRensberger wrote:
| seems to be an easy fix already up:
| https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-auth/pull/10
| macinjosh wrote:
| OpenCode has a workaround already:
| https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-auth/pull/11
| muppetman wrote:
| I feel like I'm the only person on this site that doesn't use AI
| for coding. I guess there's probably a lot of other people that
| haven't commented on this story who don't use it either. But when
| I read about how much hype and all that sort of stuff there is in
| the AI industry, and then I see the amount of posts and
| commentary and deep technical discussion about how this feature
| has affected people, I'm not so sure. Everyone I know hates AI
| and how it's been shoved into every corner of our lives, but I
| look here and it's insanely popular. Anyway, sorry this was a
| very off topic comment. It's just very interesting to me that the
| hype isn't all just hype.
| mgfist wrote:
| I hate how AI is being shoved in most things, but I do love AI
| in a few of those places (ai coding and google search
| replacement)
| iamkonstantin wrote:
| Have you noticed how Google search summaries have taken the
| shape of those annoying blogposts that take you through
| several "What is a computer program" explainers before
| answering the question?
| luckilydiscrete wrote:
| AI is indeed just hype in a lot of cases, but also has
| revolutionary value in a other cases. Trying it is the only way
| you'll be able to differentiate the latter from the former.
| isodev wrote:
| I also don't use AI for coding. I tried, I explored, I learned
| how it works.
|
| At the end, "maybe-sometimes works" and "sends a copy of all
| your code to some server in the US" are just incompatible with
| the kind of software I create.
|
| Regarding the post, I think it's telling that Anthropic is
| trying to force people into using their per-usage billing more
| than the subscription. My take is that the subscription offers
| a lot as a way of hooking developers into it and is not
| sustainable for Anthropic if people end up actually maxing
| their usage.
|
| Given how much money is wasted into the LLM craze, I can
| imagine there will be more "tightening of the belt" from the AI
| corps going forward.
|
| For the five coders out there, maybe it's time to use your
| tokens to get back control of your codebases ... you may have
| to "meat code" them soon.
| luckilydiscrete wrote:
| I'll say "maybe-sometimes works" is a misunderstanding.
|
| It feels like that initially, but that's no different from
| any new tool you adopt. A jackhammer also "maybe-sometimes
| works" as a hammer replacement.
| isodev wrote:
| Every prompt is a run of probability - It's at the core of
| the technology to be unable to give reproducible responses
| and even after a while, Claude is just as likely to sneak-
| in crimes in every snippet it outputs.
| jatora wrote:
| like the other commenter said. you need to learn to use
| new tools. and your take clearly indicates you haven't.
| lomase wrote:
| Your take clearly indicates you need to learn how to
| code.
| xpe wrote:
| Please don't snipe at others, even if someone else
| started it.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| xpe wrote:
| > Every prompt is a run of probability - It's at the core
| of the technology to be unable to give reproducible
| responses and even after a while, Claude is just as
| likely to sneak-in crimes in every snippet it outputs.
|
| Some readers might interpret "a run of probability" to
| mean "we can't say anything about the statistical
| distribution". I don't think the commenter _means_ that,
| but still, communicating statistics is hard, so I suggest
| being careful.
|
| For example, writing "even after a while, just as likely
| to sneak-in crimes in every snippet it outputs" is pretty
| attention-getting and even provoking. What does the
| commenter mean by it? What kind of 'crimes' do they mean?
| Does the commenter really mean 'just as likely'? Just as
| likely as what? I would think most readers would form
| very different takes.
| cocoto wrote:
| Not true, most tools are deterministic. For instance my
| programming language LSP just works 100% of the time with
| no failure. It doesn't hallucinate any types, methods or
| variables.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Your LSP also can't do complex reasoning across the
| purpose of your whole codebase.
| lomase wrote:
| Neither LLM can reason about anything.
|
| Reasoning is an human trait.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Whatever you say lol.
| isodev wrote:
| The usage of the word "reasoning" in the context of LLMs,
| just like the "I" in "AI", that's more marketing than a
| technical reality. I know it can be confusing.
| hu3 wrote:
| Regardless of semanthics, LLMs + tooling can do
| impressive things.
|
| For example I can tell LLMs to scan my database schema
| and compare to code to detect drift or inconsistencies.
|
| And while doing that it has enough condensed world
| knowledge to point to me that the code is probably right
| when declaring person.name a non-nullable string despite
| the database column being nullable.
|
| And it can infer that date_of_birth column is correct in
| being nullable on the database schema and wrong in code
| where the type is a non-nullable date because, in my
| system, it knows date_of_birth is an optional field.
|
| This is a simple example that can be solved by non-LLMs
| tooling also. In practice it can do much more advanced
| reasoning with regards to business rules.
|
| We can argue semanthics all day but this is reason enough
| to be useful for me.
|
| There are many examples I could give. But to the skeptics
| I recommend trying to use LLMs for understanding large
| systems. But take your time to give it read only access
| to data base schema.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Sure, sure.
| xpe wrote:
| > Neither LLM can reason about anything.
|
| > Reasoning is an human trait.
|
| Note: this is not directed at the commenter or any person
| in particular. It is directed at various patterns I've
| noticed.
|
| I often notice claims like the following:
|
| - human intelligence is the "truest" form of
| intelligence;
|
| - machines can't reason (without very clearly stating
| what you mean by reasoning);
|
| - [such and such] can only be done by a human (without
| clearly stating that you mean at the present time with
| present technology that you know of);
|
| Such claims are in my view, rather unhelpful framings -
| or worse, tropes or thought-terminated cliches. We would
| be wise to ask ourselves how such things persist.
|
| How do these ideas lodge in our brains? There are various
| shaky premises (including cognitive missteps) that lead
| to them. So I want to make some general comments that
| often lead to the above kind of thinking.
|
| It is more important than ever for people to grow their
| understanding and appreciation. I suggest considering the
| following.
|
| 1. ... recognize that one probably can't offer a
| _definition_ of {reasoning, intelligence, &c} that is
| widely agreed upon. Probably the best you can hope for is
| to clarify the sense of which you mean. There are often
| fairly clear 'camps' that can easily be referenced.
|
| 2. Recognition that implicitly hiding a definition in
| your claims -- or worse, forcing a definition on people
| -- doesn't do much good.
|
| 3. Awareness that one's language may be often
| _interpreted_ in various ways by reasonable people.
|
| 4. Internalize dictionaries are catalogs of various usage
| that evolve over time. Dictionaries are not _intended_ to
| be commandments of correctness, though some still think
| dictionary-as-bludgeon is somehow appropriate.
|
| 3. Acknowledge confusing terminology in AI/LLM in
| particular. For example, reasonable people can recognize
| that "reasoning" in this context is a fraught term.
|
| 5. Recognition that humanity is only getting started when
| it comes to making sense of how "intelligence"
| decomposes, how our brains work, the many nuanced
| differences between machine intelligence and human
| intelligence.
|
| 6. Recognize one's participation in a social context.
| Strive to not provide fuel for the fires of
| misunderstanding. If you use a fraught term, be extra
| careful to say what you mean.
|
| 7. Hopefully obvious: sweeping generalizations and
| blanket black-or-white statements are unlikely to be true
| unless you are talking about formal systems like logic
| and mathematics. Just don't do it. Don't let your
| thinking fall into that trap. And don't spew it -- that
| insults the intelligence of one's audience.
|
| 8. Generally speaking, people would be wise+ to think
| about upping their epistemic game. If one says things
| that are obviously inaccurate, you are wasting your
| intelligence refined over millions of years by evolution
| and culture. To do so is self-destructive, for it makes
| oneself less valuable relative to LLMs who (although they
| blunder) are often more reliable than people who speak
| carelessly.
|
| + Because it benefits the person directly _and_ it helps
| culture, civilization, progress, &c
| LorenzoGood wrote:
| I feel the same. I don't want to hear about it all the time
| (although I welcome discussion). I wish this site would go back
| to talking about other tech things.
| globular-toast wrote:
| I use it sparingly. I do still have to produce boilerplate and
| don't have the time/will to engineer a better solution. But any
| actual logic etc I do myself. Why would I take a chance on an
| LLM doing it wrong when I know exactly how I want it and am
| perfectly capable of doing it myself. Also, what the hell am I
| going to do in the minutes it takes to generate, just sit there
| and watch it? No thanks.
| daliusd wrote:
| It will be shoved into your life anyway. You might like it or
| not, but the only safe choice is to learn and understand it
| IMHO.
|
| About usage: it looks like web development gets benefits here,
| but other areas are not that successful somehow. While I use it
| successfully for Neovim Lua plugins development, CLI apps (in
| JS) and shell development (WezTerm Lua + fish shell). So I
| don't know if:
|
| a) it simply has clicked for me and it will click for everyone
| who invests into it;
|
| b) it is not for everybody because of tech;
|
| c) is it not for everybody because of mindset;
| dannersy wrote:
| I share your experience. Additionally, I am surprised anyone on
| this site did not see this progression coming. Between costs,
| the race to be THE provider, and anyone who has an awareness of
| how the tech industry has been operating the last 15 years,
| this move by Anthropic was so laughably predictable that the
| discourse in this thread is pretty disappointing.
| BrouteMinou wrote:
| All those people are on the drug they got on the cheap during
| the fun party nights.
|
| They are, or soon will be, surprised that the price is going to
| increase, and they are the only losers in that great story of
| theirs...
| defrost wrote:
| Was it the drug that killed River Phoenix, or the one that
| Edmund Hillary had in his veins ascending Everest?
|
| Greek philosophers pondered that question:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijx_tT5lCDY
| tkgally wrote:
| > I feel like I'm the only person on this site that doesn't use
| AI for coding.
|
| I'm surprised by that. One reason I follow discussions here
| about AI and coding is that strong opinions are expressed by
| professionals both for and against. It seems that every thread
| that starts out with someone saying how AI has increased their
| productivity invites responses from people casting doubt on
| that claim, and that every post about the flaws in AI coding
| gets pushback from people who claim to use it to great effect.
|
| I'm not a programmer myself, but I have been using Claude Code
| to vibe-code various hobby projects and I find it enormously
| useful and fun. In that respect, I suppose, I stand on the side
| of AI hype. But I also appeciate reading the many reports from
| skeptics here who explain how AI has failed them in more
| serious coding scenarios than what I do.
| schiem wrote:
| I don't use it at all for a variety of reasons, but I rarely
| bother to get into discussions on HackerNews.
|
| Looking at how new it is, and how quickly things are changing,
| it seems likely that I could adopt it into my workflow in a
| month or two if it turns out that that's necessary.
|
| On the other hand, I've spent the last 2 decades building
| skills as a developer. I'm far more worried that becoming a
| glorified code reviewer will atrophy those skills than I am
| about falling behind. Maybe it will turn out that those skills
| are now obsolete, but that feels unlikely to me.
| Izkata wrote:
| > I'm far more worried that becoming a glorified code
| reviewer will atrophy those skills
|
| A co-worker who went all-in around a year ago admitted a few
| months ago he's noticed this in himself, and was trying to
| stop using the code-generating functionality of any of these
| tools. Emphasis on "try": apparently the times it does work
| amazingly makes it addictive like gambling, and it's far too
| easy to reach for.
| dboon wrote:
| For anyone coming looking for a solution; I peeked around the OC
| repository, and a few PRs got merged in. Add this to
| $HOME/.config/opencode/opencode.json: plugin = ["opencode-
| anthropic-auth"]
|
| That is, if that's not pulled in to latest OC by the time I post
| this. Not sure what the release cycle is for builtin plugins like
| that, but by force specifying it it definitely pulls master which
| has a fix.
|
| https://opencode.ai/docs/plugins/
| casparvitch wrote:
| It appears [0] there is now a fix/workaround (?)
|
| [0] https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-auth/pull/11
| Garlef wrote:
| Maybe a subscription based payment model would also work for in
| general?
|
| Similar to a gym membership where only a small part of the paying
| users actually show up.
| misternugget wrote:
| Engineer working on Amp here.
|
| I'm very surprised that it took them this long to crack down on
| it. It's been against the terms of service from the start. When I
| asked them back in March last year whether individuals can use
| the higher rate limits that come with the Claude Code
| subscription in other applications, that was also a no.
|
| Question is: what changed? New founding round coming up, end of
| fiscal year, planning for IPO? Do they have to cut losses?
|
| Because the other surprise here is that apparently most people
| don't know the true cost of tokens and how much money Anthropic
| is losing with power users of Claude Code.
| cmdtab wrote:
| Yeah. If my claude code usage was on API directly, it would be
| in thousands. I know this because I have addon credits on top
| of the max plan because I run into weekly limits often
| llmslave2 wrote:
| > Question is: what changed? New founding round coming up, end
| of fiscal year, planning for IPO? Do they have to cut losses?
|
| I'm gonna say IPO considering their recent aggressive stealth
| marking campaign on X, Reddit, and HN.
| cheeze wrote:
| Can you share more on this?
| ramoz wrote:
| You think anthropic is losing money now with the weekly limits?
| And while hitting the gas on mass market?
| baq wrote:
| Meanwhile gpt codex 5.2 was never available outside of codex and
| nobody made a fuss out of it.
| meeq wrote:
| It is available in Opencode, you just have to install this
| plugin: https://github.com/numman-ali/opencode-openai-codex-
| auth
|
| Been using my ChatGPT sub with Opencode for a couple of weeks
| now. Only wish I'd found out sooner. Could have saved a decent
| chunk of money.
| Szpadel wrote:
| inference costs nothing in comparison to training (you have so
| many requests in parallel at their scale), for inference they
| should be profitable even when you drain whole weekly quota every
| week
|
| but of course they have to pay for training too.
|
| this looks like short sighted money grab (do they need it?), that
| trade short term profit for trust and customer base (again) as
| people will cancel their unusable subscriptions.
|
| changing model family when you have instructions tuned for for
| one of them is tricky and takes long time so people will stick to
| one of them for some time, but with API pricing you quickly start
| looking for alternatives and openai gpt-5 family is also fine for
| coding when you spend some time tuning it.
|
| another pain is switching your agent software, moving from CC to
| codex is more painful than just picking different model in things
| like OC, this is plausible argument why they are doing this.
| everfrustrated wrote:
| >inference costs nothing
|
| Clearly not true. Just look at OpenRouter model providers.
| Costs are very very real.
| mrdw wrote:
| just use free antigravity subscription with Opus 4.5 and reverse
| engineered API, and bunch of cheap google accounts
| deveworld wrote:
| The fix has been merged in https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-
| anthropic-auth/pull/11, and PR
| https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/7432 is open to bump
| the version.
|
| Until it's released, here's a workaround:
|
| 1. git clone https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-
| auth.git
|
| 2. Add to ~/.config/opencode/opencode.json: "plugin":
| ["file:///path/to/opencode-anthropic-auth/index.mjs"]
|
| 3. Run: OPENCODE_DISABLE_DEFAULT_PLUGINS=true opencode
| meeq wrote:
| Anthropic shot themselves in the foot with this decision. It's
| a PR nightmare and at the same time the open source community
| will always find a way. They just wasted everyone's time and
| likely lost a bunch of users while doing so.
|
| Thank you for sharing this!
| mike_hearn wrote:
| The open source community won't always find a way. Remote
| attestation isn't a new concept (it doesn't have to be
| hardware backed, the concept is general).
|
| The industry has enough experience with this by now to know
| how it goes, and open source projects are always the first to
| drop out of the race. The time taken to keep up becomes much
| too high to justify doing on a voluntary basis or giving away
| the results, so as the difficulty of bypassing checks goes up
| the only people who can do it become SaaS providers.
|
| BluRay BD+ was a good example of that back in the day. AACS
| was breakable by open source players. Once BD+ came along the
| open source doom9 crowd were immediately wiped out. For a
| long time the only breaks came from a company in Antigua that
| sold a commercial ripper, which was protected from US law
| enforcement by a WTO decision specific to that island.
|
| You also see this with stuff like Google YouTube/SERP
| scraping. There currently aren't any open source solutions
| that don't get rapidly blocked server side, AFAIK. Companies
| that know how to beat it keep their solutions secret and sell
| bypasses as a service.
| touristtam wrote:
| has opencode repo moved organisation from under sst to
| anomalyco?
| tietjens wrote:
| yes, anomalyco now comprises of sst, opencode, etc.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Apparently this has already been stopped in its tracks?
|
| Anthropic seems determined to plug the hole.
| ozlikethewizard wrote:
| I know this is somewhat unreasonable but watching "devs" unable
| to work because "faceless corp 1007" cut their access definitely
| has a level of schadenfreude to it.
| RamtinJ95 wrote:
| who said they are unable to work? This meme is so old and
| overused.
| wiseowise wrote:
| They laugh about LLMs hallucinating, but themselves
| hallucinate the facts that don't exist all the time.
| cloudking wrote:
| Why is OpenCode better than Claude Code?
| nake89 wrote:
| Works with several providers (e.g. Github copilot or bring your
| own key). They offer a server and an sdk, so you can build all
| kinds of personal tools. It's amazing.
| chrisvalleybay wrote:
| Very interesting! What do you mean by personal tools? Do you
| have any examples of something you've built with this?
| paradite wrote:
| Claude Code also has Claude Agent SDK (basically a wrapper
| around Claude Code) with a million downloads in the past
| week.
|
| https://www.npmjs.com/package/@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk
| azuanrb wrote:
| I wouldn't say it's better, but it does have some nice
| features. Opencode has a web UI, so I can open it on my laptop
| and then resume the same session on the web from my phone
| through Tailscale. It's pretty handy from time to time and
| takes almost zero effort from me.
| wiseowise wrote:
| It is open source, to start with, and works with a lot of LLMs
| providers instead of being vendor locked into one.
| CoolCold wrote:
| Genuine question, as someone who never used Claude Code, but used
| OpenCode/Aider/GeminiCli - as many here say Opencode is better,
| mind sharing why (from end user perspective)?
|
| I was thinking to try Claude Code later and may reconsider doing
| so.
| aserafini wrote:
| I experimented with Claude Code but returned to the familiar
| Aider which existed before all of these tools AFAIK.
|
| You'll notice people in Aider GitHub issues being concerned
| about its rather conservative pace of change, lack of plug-in
| ecosystem. But I actually started to appreciate these
| constraints as a way to really familiarise myself with the core
| "edit files in a loop with an end goal" that is the essence of
| all agent coding.
|
| Anytime I feel a snazzy feature is lacking from Aider I think
| about it and realise I can already solve it in Aider by
| changing the problem to editing a file in a loop.
| CoolCold wrote:
| Well, there is Aider-CE aka Cecli, which moves, updates
| almost every day (I'm tried to try it but much).
|
| Opencode is totally different beast comparing to Aider and I
| mostly stopped using Aider for 2 months or so - it just
| iterate simpler and faster with OpenCode for me.
| nake89 wrote:
| Hopefully this doesn't happen with GitHub Copilot. OpenCode is
| fantastic. They offer a server and an SDK. This means I build
| amazing personal tools. GitHub Copilots low price + OpenCode is
| just amazing.
| willvarfar wrote:
| Presumably there will soon be banner ads in Claude Code then?
| </s>
| ankushkun_ wrote:
| Woke up and everything is on Fire, I thought opencode had some
| bug coz it updated itself this morning, but realised its claude
| who blocked third party clients :( L for Anthropic indeed,
| opencode had wayyy better experience than claude code.
| azuanrb wrote:
| I'm curious whether this is related to the recent update. When I
| opened Claude Code, I was greeted with a "Help improve Claude"
| message that changes the retention policy from 30 days to 5 long
| years.
|
| They can't apply these changes or update parts of the flow for
| the non-Claude CLI, which explains their latest move.
| bazhand wrote:
| FWIW this isn't new, using a Claude/Max subscription auth token
| as a general-purpose "API key" has been known (and blocked) for
| ages. OpenCode basically had to impersonate the official Claude
| Code client to make that work, and it always felt like a loophole
| that would get patched eventually.
|
| This is exactly why (when OpenCode and Charm/Crush started
| diverging) Charm chose not to support "use your Claude
| subscription" auth and went in a different direction (BYOK /
| multi-provider / etc). They didn't want to build a product on top
| of a fragile, unofficial auth path.
|
| And I think there's a privacy/policy reason tightening this now
| too: the recent Claude Code update (2.1-ish) pops a "Help improve
| Claude" prompt in the terminal. If you turn that ON, retention
| jumps from 30 days to up to 5 years for new/resumed chats/coding
| sessions (and data can be used for model improvement). If you
| keep it OFF, you stay on the default 30-day retention. You can
| also delete data anytime in settings. That consent + retention
| toggle is hard to enforce cleanly if you're not in an official
| client flow, so it makes sense they're drawing a harder line.
| artdigital wrote:
| Yea exactly, I'm surprised people are calling this "drama". It
| was from the beginning against the ToS, all the stuff
| supporting it just reverse engineered what Claude Code is doing
| and spoof being a client.
|
| I tried something similar few months back and Claude already
| has restrictions against this in place. You had to very
| specifically pretend to be real Claude Code (through copying
| system prompts etc) to get around it, not just a header.
| imdsm wrote:
| Anthropic should buy OpenCode and merge with CC
| bkolobara wrote:
| Please no. I have recently switched to opencode and the product
| quality is so much higher.
| bionhoward wrote:
| Why act like it's a mystery when the Claude Code repo clearly
| explains:
|
| > When you use Claude Code, we collect feedback, which includes
| usage data (such as code acceptance or rejections), associated
| conversation data, and user feedback submitted via the /bug
| command.
|
| They subsidize Claude Code because it gives them your codebase
| and chat history
| ksynwa wrote:
| They should be getting most of it from third party clients too.
| At least the chat and the files are being sent to or from
| Anthropic's own servers.
| paolomainardi wrote:
| Not strictly related, but since Copilot could be the next to
| violate the TOS, I've asked for an official response here:
| https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/183809. If someone
| can help raise this question, it's more than welcome.
| everfrustrated wrote:
| GitHub doesn't offer any unlimited style AI model plans so I
| don't think they'll care. Their pricing is fairly aligned with
| their costs.
|
| This only affects Claude as they try to market their plan as
| unlimited with various usage rate limits but its clearly
| costing them a lot more than what they sell it for.
| realharo wrote:
| Copilot plan limits are however "per prompt", and prompts
| that ask the agent to do a lot of stuff with a large context
| are obviously going to be more expensive to run than prompts
| that don't.
| whs wrote:
| Copilot in VSCode is integrated with VSCode's LLM provider API.
| Which means that any plugins that needs LLM capabilities can
| submit request to Copilot. Roo Code support that as an option.
| And of course, there's a plugin that start an OpenAI/Anthropic-
| compatible web server inside VSCode that just calls to the LLM
| provider API. It seems that if you use unlimited models (like
| GPT-4.1) you probably get unlimited API calls. However, those
| model doesn't seems to be very agentic when used in Claude
| Code.
| krater23 wrote:
| Hold on tight, the wild journey to enshittification has begun.
| llmslave2 wrote:
| ensloppification
| B480FA8D wrote:
| The TOS, which is a contract of adhesion for consumer-facing
| products, does not really matter that much in my opinion since
| "we have to lock you in to our specific interface on our public
| offering" is not a cognizable interest. SCOTUS is also very clear
| in requiring actual damages (in incremental harms) to establish a
| CFAA violation. At any rate, opencode is essentially providing
| equitable estoppel as a service by being open and popular -
| cannot go after me without first dealing with the "unionized"
| project (last words)! I don't think they get to conflate the
| issues of alternative interface dispute and their intentional
| pricing strategy losing money on heavy users.
|
| Of course, they are banning for financial economic interests, not
| nominal alleged contractual violations, so Anthropic is not
| sympathetic.
|
| // NOT LEGAL ADVICE
|
| Obviously, I think it can make sense to Anthropic since opencode
| users likely disproportionately cost them money with little lock-
| in - you can switch the moment a comparable model is available
| elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean there are any legal or
| ethical issues barring us from continuously using the built-in
| opencode OAuth though.
| noobcoder wrote:
| Well totally within Anthropic's rights, but still a bad look.
| selectnull wrote:
| I'm willing to cancel my Claude subscription because of this.
| B480FA8D wrote:
| A crucial context is that this "block" is resolved (for now) via
| bumping version numbers. It is almost as if Anthropic deployed
| this to test the water on community reaction... Right now it is
| trivial to fingerprint opencode users without deep inspection
| into the conversations (privacy conerns), but Anthropic is not
| doing that.
|
| https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/commit/5e0125b78c8da09...
| artdigital wrote:
| See https://github.com/charmbracelet/crush/pull/1783
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if Anthropic filed a similar request
| against OpenCode, and follows it up with a takedown eventually
| kirubakaran wrote:
| So is this the Bezos play of depressing the acquisition price?
| iirc Bezos froze the Amazon referral program of GoodReads.com to
| force them to take a lower price. If so, shame on them!
| pmihaylov wrote:
| I have a background agents app I'm running -
| https://claudecontrol.com and it seems I am not impacted by this
| change. My anthropic sub still works fine.
|
| I believe this is because I am using claude code as a CLI for SDK
| purposes vs using it as a typescript library. Quite a fortunate
| choice at the time!
| titaniumrain wrote:
| Anthropic has a bunch of weirdos making decisions.
| kalamazooo wrote:
| OpenCode brought this on themselves and their users. Plugging
| Claude Max subscriptions into other agents has been against the
| terms of service basically since the start and I imagine
| Anthropic must have issued plenty of warnings here that were
| ignored. They wouldn't do this unless they really had to. If
| folks are mad about being rugged, blame OpenCode for misleading
| their users when they've long known this day was coming.
| Brilliant cynical strategy though to exploit soft enforcement for
| growth and lay the blame at the company that provided them cheap
| tokens.
| monooso wrote:
| That's a lot of supposition leading to a shaky conclusion.
|
| Your speculation may be correct, of course, but I have yet to
| see any mention of Anthropic issuing "plenty of warnings", or
| only taking this action because they "really had to."
| aamoscodes wrote:
| I haven't checked with other third parties, but Crush got a
| warning https://github.com/charmbracelet/crush/pull/1783
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| Curious about portability of CC -> OpenCode. I wonder how much of
| my CC setup (skills, commands, agents, hooks etc) will work if I
| were to switch to OpenCode.
| msten wrote:
| This makes total sense to me. Limiting the usage to their tooling
| means they can place reasonable limits on usage by controlling
| how the client interacts with the LLM and making those calls as
| efficient as possible. The current state of things didn't really
| feel sustainable.
| tempaccount420 wrote:
| They can and already place limits on the server side.
| Draiken wrote:
| Funnily enough, I didn't know about opencode and will now test it
| out and likely use it instead.
|
| Improve your client so people prefer it? Nah.
|
| Try to force people to use your client by subsidizing it? Now
| that's what I'm talking about.
|
| As others said, why not just run a bunch of agents on Claude Code
| to surpass Opencode? I'm sure that's easy with their unlimited
| tokens!
| carlgreene wrote:
| Lol this is my exact thought as well. Just downloaded it now
| and taking it for a spin...pretty good so far!
| dmezzetti wrote:
| Two words: Open Source.
| kburman wrote:
| It's the standard enshittification lifecycle: subsidize usage to
| get adoption, then lock down the API to force users into a
| controlled environment where you can squeeze them.
|
| Like Reddit, they realized they can't show ads (or control the
| user journey) if everyone is using a third-party client. The $200
| subscription isn't a pricing tier. It's a customer acquisition
| cost for their proprietary platform. Third-party clients defeat
| that purpose.
| vldszn wrote:
| At this point, Anthropic should acquihire OpenCode.
| gaigalas wrote:
| So, models are officially a commodity now.
|
| The battle is for the harness layer. And it's quickly going the
| commodity way as well.
|
| What's left for boutique-style AI companies?
| rvcdbn wrote:
| couldn't opencode just switch to agent sdk?
| tbliu wrote:
| btw, Amp just announced Opus 4.5 is now supported in their free
| tier: https://ampcode.com/news/amp-free-frontier. I've been using
| it a ton and it's a super nice cli. It has ads, but they are
| fairly non-intrusive
| hakanderyal wrote:
| If this helps to keep the $200 around longer, I'm happy.
|
| The thing I most fear is them banning multiple accounts. That
| would be very expensive for a lot of folks.
| nomadygnt wrote:
| Honestly with how good OpenCode is, this really just makes GitHub
| copilot the best subscription for the average user. It's the
| cheapest. It's free for students. You get access to all of OpenAI
| models AND Anthropic models AND Gemini models and you still have
| a pretty dang good CLI/TUI (OC, not Copilot CLI). And the limits
| are pretty reasonable. I've never hit the limits in a month
| though admittedly I am not a "five agents at once" kind of vibe
| coder.
| zeroDivisible wrote:
| It doesn't mean much but I cancelled my 5x Max subscription to
| Claude. Only way how I can tell them what I think about this
| change.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| as much as I love opus I hate this company (not for the reasons
| you'd think thought). I just have a proxy that exposes an
| unauthenticated endpoint and bypasses all their attempts at
| banning for opencode usage since I was already on like my 5th
| claude account trying to get around random bans.
| bilalbayram wrote:
| its just sad
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Reminder that Anthropic owns Bun.
| pietz wrote:
| Honest question: Why would I use Claude with OpenCode if I have a
| Claude Max subscription? Why not Claude Code?
| hooverd wrote:
| Cynically, I think they're in a Gmail 2008 era right now.
| JimmaDaRustla wrote:
| Lots of arguing about semantics of what the subscription is
| actually intended for.
|
| Claude Code, as a coding assistant, isn't even mediocre, it's
| kind of crap. The reason it's at all good is because of the model
| underneath - there's tons of free and open agent tools that are
| far better than Claude Code. Regardless of what they say you're
| paying the subscription for, the truth is the only thing of value
| to developers is the underlying AI and API.
|
| I can only think of few reasons why they'd do this: 1. Their
| Claude Code tool is not simply an agent assistant - perhaps it's
| feeding data for model training purposes, or something of the
| sorts where they gain value from it. 2. They don't want
| developers to use competitor models in any capacity. 3. They're
| offloading processing or doing local context work to drive down
| the API usage locally, making the usage minimal. This is very
| unlikely.
|
| I currently use Opus 4.5 for architecting, which then feeds into
| Gemini 3 Flash with medium reasoning for coding. It's only a
| matter of time before Google competes with Opus 4.5, and when
| they do, I won't have any loyalty to Anthropic.
| jacquesm wrote:
| For AI companies the access to the interaction is very
| valuable, that explains the price difference. It is data that
| the competition does not have access to. Of course they are
| storing that data for model training purposes, that's the whole
| reason this exists in the first place. They are subsidizing
| until they get their quality up to the point that the addiction
| is so strong you won't be able to get through your workday
| without it. And then _surprise_ the per month access fee will
| start to rise.
| ramoz wrote:
| The other harnesses would arguably give them even richer data
| and product insights.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-09 23:01 UTC)