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

Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

discuss.ai.google.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 752 posts

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#381

Post by renewiltord »

jacquesm wrote: post #120
torginus wrote: post #107

Earlier 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? Considering the tremendous amount of tokens OpenClaw can burn for something that has nothing to do with sofware development, I think it's reasonable for Google to not allow using tokens reserved for Antigravity. I don't think there's such a restriction if you pay for the API out of po…

> 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.

If I say “you can use my car for $250/month if you don’t smoke in it” and then you pay me that money and you drive around until one day you smoke in it, I’m not going to let you smoke in my car. I told you not to smoke in it and you smoked in it. That’s the deal. All seems fine to me tbh.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#382

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

jacquesm wrote: post #247
cyberax wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offering goods or services below the cost of their production is often illegal, though. It's called "dumping". Although in this case it's probably impossible to define, given the complexity of calculating the true cost of tokens.

And in this case the subsidy is paid for by tied sales from other users that don't actually use the service, which is another illegal business practice.

So cable bundling channels is also “illegal” according to you? Since I don’t watch sports?

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#383

Post by Aurornis »

jacquesm wrote: post #247
cyberax wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offering goods or services below the cost of their production is often illegal, though. It's called "dumping". Although in this case it's probably impossible to define, given the complexity of calculating the true cost of tokens.

And in this case the subsidy is paid for by tied sales from other users that don't actually use the service, which is another illegal business practice.

What are you talking about? Where is this illegal? It’s common to sell subscription services and then price them according to expected usage blended across the user base.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#384

Post by renewiltord »

sowbug wrote: post #290
sigmar wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point wasn't an analogy. the facts are that it is a private api being used with a subscription service. neither hbo nor google are required to do business with people that abuse the api.

We are in violent agreement about that point. Where we seem to disagree is that I don't think they're entitled to also keep the customer's annual subscription payment when they've decided they want out of the contract.

I think they could make a good case for a prorated refund in either small claims or as a class action.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#386

Post by hvb2 »

aseipp wrote: post #171
jacquesm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is that the discounted rate exists in the first place. Essentially these are unfair business practices, product cross subsidization to ensure market dominance. See also: Microsoft and a whole bunch of other companies. And once they've got their monopoly position there is inevitably the rug-pull. I wonder if some CPO somewhere actually had the guts to put a 'rug pull' item on the product roadmap.

"PAYGO API access" vs "Monthly Tool Subscription" is just a matter of different unit economics; there's nothing particularly unusual or strange about the idea on its own, specific claims against Google notwithstanding. Of course, Google is still in the wrong here for instantly nuking the account instead of just billing them for API usage instead (largely because an autoban or whatever easier, I'm sure).

I doubt they would have the ability to charge them for it. They never signed up for api token usage?

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#387

Post by Aurornis »

cyberax wrote: post #185
NewsaHackO wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Essentially these are unfair business practices, product cross subsidization to ensure market dominance. Offering a different discounted rate for a service, though their first-party platform is not an unfair business practice whatsoever, though. The bar isn't what you disagree with, or what you think their motives are without any substantial proof. They could even make a honest argument that they can aggressively k…

Offering goods or services below the cost of their production is often illegal, though. It's called "dumping". Although in this case it's probably impossible to define, given the complexity of calculating the true cost of tokens.

First of all, I doubt they’re losing money in inference. Even across subscriptions. This is a tired argument that has been repeated so many times on HN.

Second, that’s not what dumping means. It’s a specific term for international trade.

Third, it’s not illegal to sell something for below the cost to make it. That’s another common misunderstanding.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#389

Post by jdthedisciple »

sebmellen wrote: post #210
MarcLore wrote: post #199

[flagged]

It seems that this comment was written with some AI tool. Curious to know — are you an OpenClaw instance? Your profile seems to be an ad for some tool you or your owner/administrator created: > Building EvoLink ( https://evolink.ai ) - a unified AI API gateway for 40+ models. We help developers save 20-70% on AI API costs with smart routing and automatic failover. Previously worked on AI infrastructure and growth. Yo…

Looks like you're onto something.

This is basically the era of impossible automated bot detection since bots are now fully impersonating humans the technical way.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#390

Post by ludjer »

overgard wrote: post #362
bethekind wrote: post #15

This is draconian. > Our investigation specifically confirmed that the use of your credentials within the third-party tool “open claw” for testing purposes constitutes a violation of the Google Terms of Service [1]. This is due to the use of Antigravity servers to power a non-Antigravity product. I must be transparent and inform you that, in accordance with Google’s policy, this situation falls under a zero tolerance…

Yikes!! This is really unfortunate, because Google's models seem very good but there's no way I'm using a google service for this kind of thing with those policies. I don't even want to run OpenClaw, but that's scary! Plus, I have my google account tied to authenticating so many things that if my account were to be suspended or something that would be a nightmare. I haven't tried Antigravity but I remember on release…

There is nothing stopping you from using google models just get the correct product, you can pay for tokens then they do not care what you use it for.
Post reply on HN