And the AI price shock begins…
Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
311–320 of 752 posts
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes the models are smart, but you really cant "build things" despite the marketing if you actively beat back your users for trying I think this is the most important takeaway from this thread and at some point, this will end up biting Google and Anthropic back. OpenAI seems to have realized this and is actively trying to do the opposite. They welcomed OpenCode the same day Anthropic banned them, X is full of tweets…
It's unfortunate though that they lie and deceive by having a name called "Open"AI when they are in fact "Closed". And the whole non-profit to profit and Microsoft deals are just untrustable and unethical. They also actively employ dark strategies in cooperation with CIA and who knows when they will pull the rug under you again. Do you really trust a foundational rotten group of people who avoid accountability?
I don't know what it's called when something becomes an irony and then this irony becomes an irony itself, but that's what's up with OpenAI today. On one hand, they started this 'we're closing things down because safety' line, they normalized $200/mo subscriptions, but now they're becoming the most open AI company between the big 3. Their tooling is open source, they're lenient on their quotas on lower plans, and their allowance of third party integrations is also unique.
I would still consider OpenAI naming incorrect, but between the 3, they kind of are, open.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#313At this point, running Chinese model like GLM-5 or Kimi K2 would be far more safer than risking off your LLM subscriptions. Quite the irony that our AI techno-feudal corpo overlords doesn't want to see their LLM take off with curious and useful open source ideas. Just like Microsoft, they deliberately buried it for some reason.
Oh, maybe not, they did it in the name of "terms of service abuse" and "risk assessment".
Thus it would be far better if we can just have SOTA open weight model to run OpenClaw/Clawdbot/Molt at least we are under control. And as you see the two Chinese models I mentioned are indeed open weight, albeit taking atrocious amount of resource to really self host, and you probably need to have abliterations to remove their political guardrails.
Sigh. We can't have great things with those big tech corpos and CCP politics. Big question: Why has this world gone to shit lately.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about this ban is anticompetitive? The only think I can think of is accusing them of dumping product (as opposed to price discrimination), in which case the remedy is going to be to making them charge the API price for everything.
[flagged]
That's clearly not a good faith interpretation of the commenter you're referring to. Do better.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google wants usage that earns them street cred, not usage from bots who will never evaluate the output. They're all fighting tooth and nail to acquire customers, both free and paid... they didn't want their giveaways to be burned.
But banning accounts wholesale is not going to earn them more customers. They could have just disabled Gemini access, or even given a warning first. I don't use OpenClaw, I do pay hundreds per month for AI subscriptions, and I will not be giving that money to Google while they treat their customers like this.
> They could have just disabled Gemini access
Yes, please!
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't the reason companies are doing this because they're offering tokens at a discount, provided they're spent through their tooling? Then maybe they should charge for that instead of banning accounts? Google decided on their own business plan without any guns to their backs. If they decide to create a plan that is subsidized that's entirely on them.
Google wants usage that earns them street cred, not usage from bots who will never evaluate the output. They're all fighting tooth and nail to acquire customers, both free and paid... they didn't want their giveaways to be burned.
So they ban a group of early adopters who picked their product and who shape opinions.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#317LOL. This entire thread basically reads why you should never build dev tools. It's difficult to find a more entitled, cheapskate bunch of people who are completely clueless about business.
TIL it's "unfair" to sell a product for a particular purpose and offer subsidised rates to build a customer base. Different planet.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes; because they have no obligation to provide this service tier at all. It could be API prices for anyone, everywhere. They offer a discounted plan, $200/mo., for a restricted set of use cases. Abuse that at your peril. It’s like complaining your phone’s unlimited data plan is insufficient to run an apartment building with all units. I was told it was Unlimited! That means I can totally run 500 units through it if…
It rather sounds like you are arguing for the acceptance of weasel words in marketing. Unlimited means just that. Otherwise, there are limits, and the word “unlimited” does not apply.
Precisely. In fact I remember a story similar to this, so I Googled "did Sprint get sued for using 'unlimited' in their marketing?" Lo and behold, yes, they did. And for good reason.
It would be an understatement to say I am ashamed to work in the same industry as many of the commenters here do--commenters who are completely ignorant of antitrust law and why it exists, or for whatever reason, are completely unconcerned with the absurd market power these mega conglomerates (ab)use.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#319So the timeline is basically
* User uses Google oauth to integrate their open claw
* user gets banned from using Google AI services with no warning
* user still gets charged
If you go backwards, getting charged for services you can't access is rough. I feel sorry for those who are deeply integrated into Google services or getting banned on their main accounts. It's not a great situation.
Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. I wonder if the situation will be different for business accounts as opposed what seems like personal accounts?
The ban itself seems fair though, google is allowed to restrict usage of their services. Even though it's probably not developer friendly, it's within their rights to do so.
I guess there's some level of post mortem to do on the openclaw side too.
* Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins?
* The plugin is literally called "google-antigravity-auth", why didn't that give the signal to the maintainers?
* Why don't the maintainers, for an integration project, do due diligence checks on the terms of service of everything you're integrating with?
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're vastly misunderstanding that comment.
Thus spake the Googler... sorry, but I think I understand it just fine, I think it is you that is not understanding it properly but since your salary depends on not understanding it properly I won't blame you for that.
I'll be more explicit,
> google would be tracking who people's partners are
is a misunderstanding of that comment. Nothing they said implies that Google is tracking who people's partners are. You're welcome to have whatever opinions you are about companies, but I'd also hope that you're careful not to read conspiracies into places where they aren't stated, especially in about institutions you have preconceptions about.