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

Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

archaeologist.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 255 posts

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#171

Post by Majromax »

dchftcs wrote: post #74
Majromax wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anthropic is protecting its huge asset: the Claude Code value chain Why is that their “huge asset?” The genus of this complaint is that Opencode et al replace everything but the LLM, so it seems like the latter is the true “huge asset.” If Clause Code is being offered at or near operational breakeven, I don’t see the advantage of lock-in. If it’s being offered at a subsidy, then it’s a hint that Claude Code itself…

Anthropic and OpenAI are essentially betting that a somewhat small difference in accuracy translates to a huge advantage, and continuing to be the one that's slightly but consistently better than others is the only way they can justify investments in them at all. It's natural to then consider that an agent trained to use a specific tool will be better at using that tool. If Claude continues to be slightly better than…

In that case though, why the lock-in? If the combination really does have better performance than competitors’ offerings, then Anthropic should encourage an open ecosystem, confident in winning the comparison.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#173

Post by rstupek »

djvdq wrote: post #134
ndespres wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re asking two different LLMs to help you talk more better to another LLM?

This sounds like way too much for me. I wonder when they will add another level and talk to LLM how to talk to another LLM how to talk to another LLM

It's LLMs all the way down

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#174

Post by ethbr1 »

8note wrote: post #152
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine, but it's still "make big giant plan then yeet the impl" at the end. It's still not appropriate for the kind of incremental, chunked, piecework that's needed in a shop that has a decent review cycle. It's irresponsible to your teammates to dump very large giant finished pieces of work on them for review. I try to impress that on my coworkers, and I don't appreciate getting code reviews like that for submiss…

i think the review cycles weve been doing for the past decade or two are going to change to match the output of the LLMs and how the LLMs prefer to make whole big changes. i immediately see that the most important thing to have understand a change is future LLMs more than people. we still need to understand whats going on, but if my LLM and my coworkers LLM are better aligned, chances are my coworker will have a bett…

I think any workflow that doesn't cater to human constraints is suspect, until genAI tooling is a lot more mature.

Or to put it another way -- understandable piecemeal commits are a best practice for a fundamental human reason; moving away from them is risking lip-service reviews and throwing AI code right into production.

Which I imagine we'll get to (after there are much more robust auto-test/scan wrap-arounds), but that day isn't today.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#175

Post by apstls »

ojosilva wrote: post #28

They did not. Anthropic is protecting its huge asset: the Claude Code value chain, which has proven itself to be a winner among devs (me included, after trying everything under the sun in 2025). If anything, Anthropic's mistake is that they are incapable of monetizing their great models in the chat market, where ChatGPT reigns: ie. Anthropic did not invest in image generation, Google did and Gemini has a shot at the…

> they are working hard on making it impossible for other models to support their every increasing agent feature set (skills, teleport and remote sessions, LSP, Chrome integration, etc). The move totally makes sense, like it or not.

I don't understand, why would other models not be able to support any, or some, or even a particular single one of these? I don't even see most of these as relevant to the model itself, but rather the harness/agentic framework around it. You could argue these require a base degree of model competence for following instructions, tool calling, etc, but these things are assumed for any SOTA model today, we are well past this. Almost all of these things, if not all, are already available in other CLI + IDE-based agentic coding tools.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#177

Post by yoyohello13 »

jrsj wrote: post #50
Philpax wrote: post #13

I'll be honest; I'm pretty sure this "mistake" will be completely forgotten by the next month. Their enforcing that their subscription only works with their product should not really come as a surprise to anyone, and the alt-agent users are a small enough minority that they'll get over it.

I’m starting to think you’re right but only because software engineers don’t seem to actually value or care about open source anymore. Apparently we have collectively forgotten how bad it can be to let your tools own you instead of the other way around. Maybe another symptom of Silicon Valley hustle culture — nobody cares about the long term consequences if you can make a quick buck.

> software engineers don’t seem to actually value or care about open source anymore.

Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority never did. See any thread about Linux on HN. Maybe the Open Source wave was before my time, but ever since I came into the industry around 2015 "caring about open source" has been the minority view. It's Windows/Mac/Photo Shop/etc all the way up and down.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#178

Post by smoyer »

I agree that this probably isn't in their own interests but "because I refuse to do business with a company that takes its customers for granted" should be heavily qualified. My power company is taking advantage of me but so far I haven't had the nerve to fire them.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#179

Post by lvl155 »

ojosilva wrote: post #28

They did not. Anthropic is protecting its huge asset: the Claude Code value chain, which has proven itself to be a winner among devs (me included, after trying everything under the sun in 2025). If anything, Anthropic's mistake is that they are incapable of monetizing their great models in the chat market, where ChatGPT reigns: ie. Anthropic did not invest in image generation, Google did and Gemini has a shot at the…

This is really not the point. Anthropic isn’t cutting off third-party. You can use their models via API all you want. Why are people conflating this issue? Anthropic doesn’t owe anyone anything to offer their “unlimited” pro tiers outside of Claude Code. It’s not hard to build your own Opencode and use API keys. CLI interface by itself is not a moat.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#180

Post by 0x457 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #62
hakanderyal wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try plan mode if you haven't already. Stay in plan mode until it is to your satisfaction. With Opus 4.5, when you approve the plan it'll implement the exact spec without getting off track 95% of the time.

It's fine, but it's still "make big giant plan then yeet the impl" at the end. It's still not appropriate for the kind of incremental, chunked, piecework that's needed in a shop that has a decent review cycle. It's irresponsible to your teammates to dump very large giant finished pieces of work on them for review. I try to impress that on my coworkers, and I don't appreciate getting code reviews like that for submiss…

Well, if the plan is large, it splits into stages and asks if it needs to continue when it's done with a stage. This is a good time to run `git diff` and review changes. You review this code just like you would review code from your coworker.
Post reply on HN