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

331–340 of 418 posts

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#331

Post by mech422 »

maxaw wrote: post #310
mech422 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part I never really understood, was I thought the subscriptions were to try and boost Opus usage, not claude code usage ? I'm not sure why they care whether you use API or claude, as they limit the number of tokens you can use anyway - and once the request hits the model, I would have thought it takes the same amount of effort to process it regardless of where it comes from ?

It’s definitely to encourage Claude code usage. Owning the interface through which your core product is delivered is a hedge against the commoditisation that everyone talks about. Eg, it’s much harder to switch from Claude code to cursor or vice versa than it is to switch between models in cursor (I sometimes don’t even notice model defaulting to composer inside cursor)

I can believe it - maybe they feel they have enough of a lead in usage with programmers with Opus that they want to locking down the tooling side as well.

edit: clarify

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#332

Post by kaycey2022 »

maxaw wrote: post #310
mech422 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part I never really understood, was I thought the subscriptions were to try and boost Opus usage, not claude code usage ? I'm not sure why they care whether you use API or claude, as they limit the number of tokens you can use anyway - and once the request hits the model, I would have thought it takes the same amount of effort to process it regardless of where it comes from ?

It’s definitely to encourage Claude code usage. Owning the interface through which your core product is delivered is a hedge against the commoditisation that everyone talks about. Eg, it’s much harder to switch from Claude code to cursor or vice versa than it is to switch between models in cursor (I sometimes don’t even notice model defaulting to composer inside cursor)

This is clearest reason for us to accustom ourselves to using open weight models on open source harnesses. Whatever advantages the frontier closed models offer, this will turn into ash in the mouth, when the enshittification cycle begins. And don't be mistaken, it will begin. There is no precedent which can claim otherwise.

I am sure the models themselves are being RLHF tuned to work very well with the proprietary agent harnesses. This is all turning into a huge trap right in front of our eyes and the target is not just programmers but also companies whose core product involves software production.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#333

Post by Ferret7446 »

FuckButtons wrote: post #316
achompas wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation. I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms. The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime. Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscrip…

I think this is disingenuous, people want to be able to use a tool that they pay for to do useful work on their own terms because they payed for it and don’t see the differential pricing model offered by Anthropic as legitimate.

[flagged]

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#334

Post by bshih »

joshstrange wrote: post #225
flowerthoughts wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the Python or Typescript Agent SDK libraries: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/overview

Or can you? It's my understanding that you cannot use your subscription with the Agent SDK, that's what the docs say: > Unless previously approved, Anthropic does not allow third party developers to offer claude.ai login or rate limits for their products, including agents built on the Claude Agent SDK. Please use the API key authentication methods described in this document instead. Though there was that tweet [0] a…

Yea I am this exact boat - it's insane how unclear it is. Why have the -p option at all if they don't want it to be called by other processes?

If they only want people using claude code inside their harness, they could... just remove -p?

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#335

Post by kaycey2022 »

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…

I don't think it's any of that. It's plain as day to see that as the owners of the API they can see every request, collect every metric they need. The routing can easily be done in the API gateway layer and doesn't depend on the harness at all. Good harnesses are not performing acrobatics around user behaviour to improve anything. They just understand the provider API very well and translate tool calls really well. Then they get out of the way to let the magic happen.

This is about controlling user behaviour, resisting standardisation efforts, to keep subscribers hooked to their models. If they keep their users on claude code, they don't have to adapt to evolving harness standards when shown increased usage across different harnesses. They will try to keep everything on their terms, on their poor quality of engineering, and the users accustomed to claude behaviour will be left with no quick way to switch to other models.

This strategy will keep working as long as they own a top tier frontier model with enough marketing hype behind it to blind unsophisticated users.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#336

Post by kaycey2022 »

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…

there is nothing about claude code that prevents you from using it for non coding use cases. nothing that happens in open code or any harness for that matter is hidden from anthropic. neither does open code allow access in some nefarious use case that claude code does not.

the difference is not like the difference between gmail and gmailfs like you seem to be misunderstanding. a more accurate comparison would be the difference between curl, or httpie vs postman.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#337

Post by maxaw »

kaycey2022 wrote: post #332
maxaw wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s definitely to encourage Claude code usage. Owning the interface through which your core product is delivered is a hedge against the commoditisation that everyone talks about. Eg, it’s much harder to switch from Claude code to cursor or vice versa than it is to switch between models in cursor (I sometimes don’t even notice model defaulting to composer inside cursor)

This is clearest reason for us to accustom ourselves to using open weight models on open source harnesses. Whatever advantages the frontier closed models offer, this will turn into ash in the mouth, when the enshittification cycle begins. And don't be mistaken, it will begin. There is no precedent which can claim otherwise. I am sure the models themselves are being RLHF tuned to work very well with the proprietary ag…

Fully agree with you

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#338

Post by esperent »

skeledrew wrote: post #322
esperent wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Their ToS says differently. You can't argue with what's explicitly in their legal agreement.

Sure you can. TOS docs are full of non legally enforceable wishful thinking bullshit, especially when they're written by an American company providing services to me in Europe. Most of the time they just expect (correctly) that they'll never get challenged in court over it.

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#339

Post by esperent »

skeledrew wrote: post #324
lxgr wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I thought API key usage was always billed per token, not via monthly allowances?

There're keys for users to access their public API with whatever they want, and there're tokens for Claude Code to access their private API.

Which one is OpenCode using?

Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

#340

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

achompas wrote: post #265
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are materially ahead of every open source model out there at this time They aren't. Any difference is in sampling parameters and post-training flavor choices. These aren't things that are "materially ahead", that's basically just LLM themes.

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…

> three to six months behind on performance

Yeah, like I said - it's just a post-training difference. That's not a material difference, that's a difference of chrome and polish.

Post reply on HN