Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

discuss.ai.google.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 752 posts

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#101

Post by artisin »

xnx wrote: post #80
artisin wrote: post #75

Yup. Last week my Ultra account got ToS-banned from both the Gemini CLI and Antigravity simply for using OpenCode. Try as I might, I haven't been able to resolve the issue. I can technically still use the Gemini web/app, but it's remarkably terrible in just about every conceivable way. A truly impressive feat in itself.

Can you use Google AI Studio?

As of now, yes. However, a few months ago it was mentioned that Google is working on increasing the limits for Pro/Ultra subscribers. But if I can't get this ToS ban sorted out, I assume it'll follow my account when that update lands, and I'll end up being banned from AI Studio as well.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#102

Post by qeternity »

salawat wrote: post #94
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unreasonable? It’s a subsidized price; conditional to using their tooling. Don’t want to use their tooling? Pay the API rates. The API is sitting right there, ready to use for a broader range of purposes. It’s only unreasonable if you think the customer has a right to have their cake and eat it too.

Tradition warrants a negotiation phase when one party wishes to change the terms of an agreement, or becomes cognizant that the counterparty may wish to do the same. The tech industry has gorged on non-participation in this facet of contract law, instead resorting to all or nothing clickwrap, which is, barring existential or egregious circumstances, unwarranted, and in my opinion, is fundamentally unreasonable, and s…

> Tradition warrants a negotiation phase when one party wishes to change the terms of an agreement, or becomes cognizant that the counterparty may wish to do the same.

They didn't change the agreement. One party violated it, and the other party withdrew as a result.

This is so vanilla. But people will moan because they want subsidized tokens.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#103

Post by chasil »

cogman10 wrote: post #22
bethekind wrote: post #15

This is draconian. > Our investigation specifically confirmed that the use of your credentials within the third-party tool “open claw” for testing purposes constitutes a violation of the Google Terms of Service [1]. This is due to the use of Antigravity servers to power a non-Antigravity product. I must be transparent and inform you that, in accordance with Google’s policy, this situation falls under a zero tolerance…

Oh man. What a wonderful way to stop people from using your LLM. All these AI companies trying to get everyone to be locked into their toolchains is just hilariously short sighted. Particularly for dev tools. It's the sure path to get devs to hate your product. And for what? The devs are already paying a pretty penny to use your LLM. Why do you also need to force them to using your toolkit?

Google has been particularly pernicious in the corporate exercise of zero-tolerance.

Because of their large footprint in so many areas, it is wise to greatly (re)consider expansion in the ways that you rely on them.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#104

Post by t-writescode »

cupantae wrote: post #89
t-writescode wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I [ctrl+f]'d for this comment in the thread linked above, and couldn't find it. May I ask where you saw that?

It’s there. User Jun_Meng.

Thank you. I wonder if partial loading or something was keeping me from finding it. Oh well.

Either way, for everyone else: https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/account-restricted-without-w...

There's the direct link to the specific post.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#105

Post by kristjansson »

Why is everyone surprised, these subscriptions are basically toys. You pay so much, and you get about that much in inference compute, more if you’re lucky / early.

If you want to real use these things get an API key and pay the true marginal cost of your compute like a grown up.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#107

Post by torginus »

bethekind wrote: post #15

This is draconian. > Our investigation specifically confirmed that the use of your credentials within the third-party tool “open claw” for testing purposes constitutes a violation of the Google Terms of Service [1]. This is due to the use of Antigravity servers to power a non-Antigravity product. I must be transparent and inform you that, in accordance with Google’s policy, this situation falls under a zero tolerance…

Isn't the reason companies are doing this because they're offering tokens at a discount, provided they're spent through their tooling?

Considering the tremendous amount of tokens OpenClaw can burn for something that has nothing to do with sofware development, I think it's reasonable for Google to not allow using tokens reserved for Antigravity. I don't think there's such a restriction if you pay for the API out of pocket.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#108

Post by jwpapi »

jsheard wrote: post #55
esskay wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine its a case of the providers not wanting to admit its costing them a fortune because suddenly all these low-medium usage accounts are now their highest use ones. Not saying it's right. But it's also not exactly a secret that they are all taking VERY heavy losses even with pricey subscriptions.

> But it's also not exactly a secret that they are all taking VERY heavy losses even with pricey subscriptions. It's absurd, there's people out there paying $200 for the equivalent of $1600 in API credits. Of course there's a catch! What did you expect! https://bsky.app/profile/borum.dev/post/3meynioealc2x That tool is "ccusage" if you're a Claude subscriber and want to see what the damage will be if/when Anthropic d…

its 200 to 6000 and I use the 6000. I also use an antigravity subscription for probably another 6k (I don’t use them fully tho,)

I cant believe this is net positive for them.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#109

Post by sowbug »

noosphr wrote: post #45
cogman10 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man. What a wonderful way to stop people from using your LLM. All these AI companies trying to get everyone to be locked into their toolchains is just hilariously short sighted. Particularly for dev tools. It's the sure path to get devs to hate your product. And for what? The devs are already paying a pretty penny to use your LLM. Why do you also need to force them to using your toolkit?

You are being subsidised to the tune of 50 to 99.9 cents on the dollar compared to the API. What the hell do you expect? To get paid for using other people's tools on Google's servers?

Businesses do not have an entitlement to profit. Suspending customers for using a fairly expensive subscription plan -- especially forfeiting an annual prepayment for a day or two of coloring outside the lines -- sure does make Google appear entitled to profit without ever risking its own pricing model.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#110

Post by techpression »

paxys wrote: post #68

I don't know why people here can't accept the simple fact that AI companies are offering cheap "unlimited" plans as a loss leader to tie you to their ecosystem, and then make up for it via add-ons, upsells, ads etc. If you use those API tokens to access external services it defeats the purpose. The hack may have worked so far, mainly because no one was checking, but they are all going to tighten the access eventually…

When reading HN I get the impression that a lot of people are convinced monthly plans are very profitable for the companies, I don’t have any numbers but to me it always seemed like a bait and switch or ”bait and make you pay with your data too”.
Post reply on HN