131–140 of 533 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some sense that's what OpenCode is, and Anthropic's not having that.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
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 coul…
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?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to subscribers? I dunno. But they really want you to use the Claude Code™ 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
Claude Code only trains on data if you opt in
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™ CLI with that subscript…
> Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to subscribers? I dunno. But they really want you to use the Claude Code™ 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
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™ CLI with that subscript…
> Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to subscribers? I dunno. But they really want you to use the Claude Code™ 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
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™ CLI with that subscript…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude Code only trains on data if you opt in
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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…
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).