101–110 of 533 posts
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
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). Th…
> 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
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 an…
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
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). Th…
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?
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 f…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
inb4 Anthropic acquires Opencode
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.
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
Strongly disagree. They are just trying to moat.