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

Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 418 posts

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#291

Post by esperent »

wavemode wrote: post #247
rudedogg wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more like if Google took action against Thunderbird and open-source email clients

No, because in those cases you're still a user of gmail. When you tell people your email address, or send people email, and it contains "@gmail.com", you're still implicitly advertising for Google. From Google's perspective that's still worth the few KB per day of bandwidth and 1GB storage (which the vast majority of people never use the entirety of, anyway) they're giving away. But when you use gmail accounts as fil…

And here, you're still using Claude Opus, and when people ask you what you used, you'd say OpenCode client with Claude (Thunderbird client with Gmail).

As analogies go it's pretty close.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#292

Post by tmp10423288442 »

piskov wrote: post #246
nikcub wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is analogous to when Google launched Gmail with 1GB of storage and then a bunch of third-party apps cropped up that took advantage of it to use it as a generic online file storage drive. There was GMailFS[0] and Gmail Drive[1] - this is before S3, dropbox, and a time where web hosting would give you ~10MB or so of space. Google updated their ToS and shut down accounts using their service in ways they weren't int…

So what openai does differently than anthropic to allow usage everywhere via chatgpt subscription? Hemorrhaging money more than Anthropic?

Some have claimed that Codex has better token efficiency in their harness than Claude Code.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#293

Post by pmarreck »

celestialcheese wrote: post #139
827a wrote: post #98

I'm really struggling to understand how Anthropic is benefited by not allowing this. Its bad PR for no good reason. The only thing I can figure is that Claude Code is hemorrhaging money, they're too afraid to actually enforce reasonable token limits, and the only thing that's keeping it from totally bankrupting the company tomorrow is: controlling the harness and having the harness dynamically route toward Haiku or S…

My guess is that the telemetry data they can collect from interacting with claude code is the "secret sauce" behind a lot of the improvements we're seeing with coding models right now. Look at cursors Composer-2 release today. Clicking "accept" during plan mode, committing changes and pushing to a remote repo, etc. is a really strong reward signal. Can't collect telemetry from applications you don't control.

Yeah but they're not owed the telemetry. It's a privilege (if you convince your users to interface with your service via their client), not a right.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#294

Post by esperent »

malisper wrote: post #188

Since there's a lot of questions about what this means, let me explain. Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code. The Claude API has usage based pricing. The more you use, the more you pay. With Claude Code, you can get a monthly subscription which gives you a fixed amount of usage. Comparing equivalent token generation between the Claude API and Claude Code, Claude…

> Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code.

No, the two relevant products are Claude API vs Claude subscription. There's no "Claude Code subscription". There's just a subscription for all Claude services at once.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#295

Post by adampunk »

gwd wrote: post #54
adampunk wrote: post #4

[flagged]

They're perfectly happy being an API provider, where they're not selling their tokens at a loss. My guess is that they're counting the losses for Claude Code Max plans as R&D: what does usage look like if people don't have to worry about the cost of tokens? Because someday they won't, and Anthropic want to skate to where the puck will be, not where it is.

You don't go after OpenCode because they allow for arbitrage. You go after them because they can decouple your model from your brand.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#296

Post by faangguyindia »

malisper wrote: post #188

Since there's a lot of questions about what this means, let me explain. Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code. The Claude API has usage based pricing. The more you use, the more you pay. With Claude Code, you can get a monthly subscription which gives you a fixed amount of usage. Comparing equivalent token generation between the Claude API and Claude Code, Claude…

Claude code might be subsidized but there are other risks

Like if any agent can use claude models then it exposes them to distillation risk. Where data gathered from millions of such agent usage can easily be used to train a model, making their model superiority subpar

Second thing is, to improve their own coding model, you need predictable input.

If input to their model is all over the place (using different harnesses adds additional entropy to data) then it's hard to improve the model along 1 axis.

Cache is money saver in computing. Their own client might be lot better at caches than any other agent so they do not want to lose money yet end up with disgrunted customer that claude isn't working as good

And also, if a user can simply switch model in an agent. Then what moat does anthropic have? Claude code will not include other companys models and thus will allow them to make their claude code more "complex" with time so the workflows are ingrained in users psyche to the point using anything else becomes very difficult and user quickly returns to claude code

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#297

Post by gwd »

adampunk wrote: post #295
gwd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're perfectly happy being an API provider, where they're not selling their tokens at a loss. My guess is that they're counting the losses for Claude Code Max plans as R&D: what does usage look like if people don't have to worry about the cost of tokens? Because someday they won't, and Anthropic want to skate to where the puck will be, not where it is.

You don't go after OpenCode because they allow for arbitrage. You go after them because they can decouple your model from your brand.

Before this change:

Opencode decouples model (Claude) from brand (Claude Code) in one of two ways: using the subscription, or pay-per-use API calls

After this change:

Opencode decouples model from brand in one way: pay-per-use API calls

This change fails to prevent decoupling model from brand.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#298

Post by impulser_ »

aray07 wrote: post #211
impulser_ wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my theory. They don't want other harnesses to use this because it costs them more. I don't know exactly how OpenCode works, but I'm assuming when people are using this plugin they are mostly using Opus for everything while Claude Code really only uses Opus for writing the actual code. It uses Haiku and Sonnet for almost all of the tasks outside of writing code. So it hard for them to control and understand th…

you can choose your own model in claude code and it generally defaults to Opus

Yeah, but that's just the model the main agent uses. The subagents aren't Opus. They are Haiku and Sonnet. Most of the token heavy work is offloaded to subagents because of this.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#300

Post by achompas »

ninjagoo wrote: post #274
achompas wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but you’re demonstrably incorrect. Listen, I want more open weight models in the world. They create entrepreneurial opportunities and support use cases which the foundation labs don’t want to support. But open weight models are consistently three to six months behind on performance compared to closed models, as confirmed by both benchmarks and personal use. They’re closer on coding and much further away on…

> I’m sorry but you’re demonstrably incorrect. Please so demonstrate?

The onus isn’t on me. It’s on anyone contradicting findings by most benchmarks, because most of them show a clear advantage for Opus and GPT over OSS models.
Post reply on HN