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

Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 489 posts

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#281

Post by [deleted] »

samastur wrote: post #274
EdwardDiego wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to 4.7, didn't have a choice, found it unsatisfactory, then Claude quietly added in the option to use 4.6, so I'm back on 4.6, and I'm not the only one in my company. I had far more hallucinations with 4.7 than 4.6. I'll try it again after a few more months for them to get it right, but 4.6 is what changed my mind on LLMs as a tool, and 4.7 felt like a step backwards, so for now I'm sticking with something tha…

How did you manage to do that? /model command returns only 4 choices for me: Opus 4.7, two Sonnet options and Haiku.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#282

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

johnfink8 wrote: post #250
couchdb_ouchdb wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of this sentiment over the previous six months from people on reddit. I have yet to experience this myself as a developer with over 20 years of experience.

I see a lot of the "4.7 is a downgrade" sentiment. 4.7 does (mostly) what you ask it to do. 4.6 does what it thinks it should do. As someone with 20 years writing my own code I want the former, but the loud contingent online wants the latter. When you're on a mature codebase with 500k+ lines of code, I haven't seen anything else be as effective as 4.7.

I can tell you for a fact, Claude 4.7 was NOT doing what I told it to do (in fact the clear and complete opposite - repeatedly), a pretty simple architectural refactor, and that Codex did better and DeepSeek much better.

It was given very simple ways to verify success. It simply didn't do that and said it's at a good stopping point, despite moving in the WRONG direction not even doing 1% of the task, and being told to see the task through to completion.

Meanwhile, Codex broke it down into 3 steps and just got it done...

No, "I'm going to give it to you straight, this is a large risky commit that could go sideways, so I'm just not going to do anything instead."

Claude worked on it for almost 200 commits over 2 weeks, needing to typically prompt it 3x to even TRY to make any progress instead of just wasting tokens to ignore me and tell me how big and risky it is.

Maybe Claude is just particularly terrible at this type of refactor. I'm not sure why that would be.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#283

Post by brianwawok »

serf wrote: post #184
mattmanser wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little the opposite, what's the point of using an IDE with AI? I genuinely don't get it? These days I just use Claude Code Desktop or Claude Code in powershell. Standalone, not inside and IDE. Honestly, I'm using Desktop more and more as it gets more features. The IDE is for me. No AI in it at all. If I want to get Claude to do something specific to a file I just @ the file.

the obvious answer is because it's easier , faster, and more efficient to flip a true to false right in front of you than it is to prompt an llm. if your response is "my prompts don't produce code that needs values flipped, ever." then I would wager you're only touching very simple things with an LLM. for me I don't care about the token cost and prompt writing so much as the fact that it's just faster to change 0 to…

But why did you flip that true to false? It sounds like a missing unit test. So at a minimum it’s do the flip, find the right place to unit test, and write a test. Or I just tell my LLM “this should be false because of X, fix and write a test”

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#284

Post by fg137 »

Insanity wrote: post #249
iamflimflam1 wrote: post #157

From reading the article. They offered their developers both Claude code and Copilot. What they wanted was for them to use both and feedback which was better. The developers voted with their feet and didn’t use Copilot. What Microsoft were hoping was that the opposite would happen...

Wonder if Amazon will do the same with CC and Kiro now that we internally have access to both. I think Kiro might have some “first mover” advantage internally, but CC feels better to use.

I never understand why Amazon even bothers to build their own coding agent.

GitHub Copilot is in a somewhat similar place as Microsoft's toy but still different -- it was more or less the first coding agent/assistant, and GitHub/VSCode/Microsoft has enough user base and impact to influence individual users and enterprises' choices.

For Amazon's coding agent -- I just never see anyone outside Amazon even mentions Kiro or Amazon Q. Maybe a little bit when Kiro was offering tons of free credits. But I don't think it's even remotely relevant these days. I don't see news about companies adopting Kiro.

To me, it's just a matter of time before they are sunset, like Chime or a bunch of AWS products.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#285

Post by gwerbin »

fortran77 wrote: post #272
gofreddygo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For months, Employees had the option to choose claude code or copilot. Now they dont. Underlying model choice still has no restrictions. Opus 4.6 is by far the most popular. there's still big $$$ bills going anthropic's way.

I use copilot cli and I can pick Anthropic models. The Microsoft interface seems fine to me, and equivalent. Not sure what the big deal is.

Funny I had the opposite experience. The Claude models seemed equivalent to GPT-5.4/5 in a generic harness like Copilot CLI or Opencode or Pi, but Claude Code the app/harness is so much better than all the others that I switched at work, even though I'd much prefer to use a non-proprietary harness (and eventually I do want to get Pi set up to be comparable).

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#286

Post by krzyk »

harimau777 wrote: post #266

The comments I see recommending selective use of cheaper models doesn't match the reality I experience working in the industry. I have the constant threat hanging over my head of being fired if I don't churn out code quickly enough. I'm not willing to gamble with my livelyhood by using a less effective model. Saving money on tokens isn't something that's rewarded during performance reviews; particularly because it's…

If you have such toxic environment, run.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#287

Post by bitexploder »

skywhopper wrote: post #178
rplnt wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly related (me not understanding) is why the Copilot in VS code is essentially just CLI interface. Why can't it use the IDE tools (search, LSP, ...). All it ever does is trying to execute grep.

Because it’s far far easier to make a text-generation machine generate text that has decades of how-to explanations on the Internet than to correctly work an internal editor API that changes often and isn’t as well-documented. Especially if you want effective results.

I replaced common grep with a semantic search wrapper for some projects. It was amusing. It has a response header that lets Claude know it is not using standard grep. Works fine. Have to out smart them ;)

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#288

Post by __mharrison__ »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #157

From reading the article. They offered their developers both Claude code and Copilot. What they wanted was for them to use both and feedback which was better. The developers voted with their feet and didn’t use Copilot. What Microsoft were hoping was that the opposite would happen...

Copilot was great when folks were semi-attempting write their own coffee and needed auto complete.

There's a large (and growing!) contingent of people who don't write code these days. (Many don't even use the keyboard.)

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#289

Post by krzyk »

fortran77 wrote: post #272
gofreddygo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For months, Employees had the option to choose claude code or copilot. Now they dont. Underlying model choice still has no restrictions. Opus 4.6 is by far the most popular. there's still big $$$ bills going anthropic's way.

I use copilot cli and I can pick Anthropic models. The Microsoft interface seems fine to me, and equivalent. Not sure what the big deal is.

Harness makes a difference. Also in copilot you have smaller context for Claude models.

And you get a token based pricing since June 1.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#290

Post by mark_l_watson »

kaoD wrote: post #156
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to get a better sense of the time cost quality matrix of these, so I threw together a quick eval of Sonnet 4.6, Mistral's dev model, and Opus 4.7 (figuring it's what you'd use if you were on Max). The results for a function implementation and test of levenshtein distance in js are pretty similar but Mistral is 30x cheaper than Opus 4.7 and 4x faster than Sonnet 4.6. https://5m6qnuhyde.evvl.io/

But that's not very informative. Levenshtein distance is not only a well-understood problem, it's small, self-contained, and extremely well-represented in the training data. The kind of problem where even small/bad models can excel. The golden standard for those tasks is just "use a library" so no wonder the beefy models are expensive: you're chartering a commercial airplane to go grocery shopping. My personal benchm…

While you are correct that something like Antigravity 2 + Opus 4.6 can handle large scale software engineering tasks, I would argue that it is usually (but not always) better "coding agent hygiene" to work on smaller code modules and as the human in the loop be a partner, not someone who prompts and then disengages.

Breaking code up into composable chunks has worked well for me over 50+ years as a professional software developer, and I can't get away from the idea that it is still usually the way to go using agentic coding tools.

Post reply on HN