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

Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

code.claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 827 posts

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#391

Post by k8sToGo »

throwaway24778 wrote: post #383
Loic wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They put no limits on the API usage, as long as you pay. Here, they put limits on the "under-cover" use of the subscription. If they can provide a relatively cheap subscription against the direct API use, this is because they can control the stuff end-to-end, the application running on your system (Claude Code, Claude Desktop) and their systems. As you subscribe to these plans, this is the "contract", you can use onl…

I don't and would never pay for an LLM, but presumably they also want for force ads down your throat eventually, yea? Hard to do if you're just selling API access.

Compared to the heavily subsidized subscriptions, I don't think API is sold at loss.

Also why would you create a throwaway for this question? Are you trying to rage bait?

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#392

Post by mosselman »

ifwinterco wrote: post #313
andreagrandi wrote: post #273

I'm only waiting for OpenAI to provide an equivalet ~100 USD subscription to entirely ditch Claude. Opus has gone down the hill continously in the last week (and before you start flooding with replies, I've been testing opus/codex in parallel for the last week, I've plenty of examples of Claude going off track, then apologising, then saying "now it's all fixed!" and then only fixing part of it, when codex nailed at t…

Opus 4.6 genuinely seems worse than 4.5 was in Q4 2025 for me. I know everyone always says this and anecdote != data but this is the first time I've really felt it with a new model to the point where I still reach for the old one. I'll give GPT 5.3 codex a real try I think

I asked Codex 5.3 and Opus 4.6 to write me a macos application with a certain set of requirements.

Opus 4.6 wrote me a working macos application.

Codex wrote me a html + css mockup of a macos application that didn't even look like a macos application at all.

Opus 4.5 was fine, but I feel that 4.6 is more often on the money on its implementations than 4.5 was. It is just slower.

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#393

Post by bildung »

mirzap wrote: post #365
maplethorpe wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't OpenAI spend like 10 billion on inference in 2025? Which is around the same as their total revenue? Why do people keep saying inference is cheap if they're losing so much money from it?

When you have 800–900 million active users, no matter how cheap it is, your costs will be in the billions.

They paid about $10B on inference and had about $10B in revenue in 2025. The users and numbers of zeroes on those numbers are not relevant. What is relevant is the ratio of those numbers. They apparently are not even profitable on inference, wich is the cheap part of the whole business.

And cost of inference tripled from $3B in 2024 to $10B in 2025, so cost of revenue linearly grows with number of users, i.e. it does not get cheaper.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai_docs/

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#394

Post by hamandcheese »

KingMob wrote: post #366
mirzap wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying charging above marginal cost to fund R&D is weird. That’s how every R&D company works. My point was simpler: they’re almost certainly not losing money on subscriptions because of inference. Inference is relatively cheap. And of course the big cost is training and ongoing R&D. The real issue is the market they’re in. They’re competing with companies like Kimi and DeepSeek that also spend heavily on R&D…

Yes, and my point is that thinking the cost of subscriptions is only inference, and not the research, is mistaken. They can totally lose money on subscriptions despite the costs of inference, because research costs have to be counted too.

> Yes, and my point is that thinking the cost of subscriptions is only inference, and not the research, is mistaken.

Of course they are losing money when you factor in R&D. Everybody knows that. That is not what people mean when they say that they "lose money" on subscriptions.

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#395

Post by eamag »

latexr wrote: post #358
seu wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Opus has gone down the hill continously in the last week Is a week the whole attention timespan of the late 2020s?

We’re still in the mid-late 2020s. Once we really get to the late 2020s, attention spans won’t be long enough to even finish reading your comment. People will be speaking (not typing) to LLMs and getting distracted mid-sentence.

Reminded https://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781618249203/9781618249203___...

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#396

Post by HDThoreaun »

master-lincoln wrote: post #385
margalabargala wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flat rate does not imply unlimited.

What else would it mean?

That you are buying a bundle and it doesnt matter how much of the bundle you use you pay the same amount every billing period?

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#397

Post by bilekas »

throwaway24778 wrote: post #383
Loic wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They put no limits on the API usage, as long as you pay. Here, they put limits on the "under-cover" use of the subscription. If they can provide a relatively cheap subscription against the direct API use, this is because they can control the stuff end-to-end, the application running on your system (Claude Code, Claude Desktop) and their systems. As you subscribe to these plans, this is the "contract", you can use onl…

I don't and would never pay for an LLM, but presumably they also want for force ads down your throat eventually, yea? Hard to do if you're just selling API access.

But the idea of an API is more to encourage creativity and other people/companies building products and services on or around your systems. This used to be seen as a positive as it would mean you were an important cog in other peoples products and so more users, exposure, brand awareness etc.

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#398

Post by bilekas »

k8sToGo wrote: post #391
throwaway24778 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't and would never pay for an LLM, but presumably they also want for force ads down your throat eventually, yea? Hard to do if you're just selling API access.

Compared to the heavily subsidized subscriptions, I don't think API is sold at loss. Also why would you create a throwaway for this question? Are you trying to rage bait?

> Also why would you create a throwaway for this question? Are you trying to rage bait?

You should never question anyone's route to privacy :)

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#399

Post by throwaway24778 »

k8sToGo wrote: post #391
throwaway24778 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't and would never pay for an LLM, but presumably they also want for force ads down your throat eventually, yea? Hard to do if you're just selling API access.

Compared to the heavily subsidized subscriptions, I don't think API is sold at loss. Also why would you create a throwaway for this question? Are you trying to rage bait?

> Are you trying to rage bait?

If you have to ask, it's probably not rage bait. I'm just too lazy to come up with a username.

Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use

#400

Post by mraart »

imafish wrote: post #364
latexr wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re still in the mid-late 2020s. Once we really get to the late 2020s, attention spans won’t be long enough to even finish reading your comment. People will be speaking (not typing) to LLMs and getting distracted mid-sentence.

Seems we're already there. My brain trailed off after "won’t be long enough to even finish"...

That's still impressive, given your claim of being a fish...
Post reply on HN