Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

archaeologist.dev

41–50 of 255 posts

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#41
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might make sense from Anthropics perspective but as a user of these tools I think it would be a huge mistake to build your workflow around Claude Code when they are pushing vendor lock in this aggressively. Making this mistake could end up being the AI equivalent of choosing Oracle over Postgres

I’ve done that and unless I’m missing something it seems like it would be trivial for me to switch to an alternative.

If you’ve only got a CLAUDE.md and sub agent definitions in markdown it is pretty easy to do at the moment, although more of their feature set is moving in a direction that doesn’t have 1:1 equivalents in other tools.

The client is closed source for a reason and they issued DMCA takedowns against people who published sourcemaps for a reason.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#42
post #9

A good example of an extremely small but extremely vocal minority doing their best to punish a company for not catering to their explicitly disallowed use case for no reason other than they want it. I'd bet this has 0 negative impact on their business.

illegal?

my 3am writing tends to be less precise, updated

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#43
Honestly very confused by the people happy or agreeing with Anthropic here. You can use their API on a pay-per-use basis, or (as I interpreted the agreement) you can prepay as a subscription and use their service with hourly & weekly session limits.

What's changed is that I thought I was subscribing to use their API services, claude code as a service. They are now pushing it more as using only their specific CLI tool.

As a user, I am surprised, because why should it matter to them whether I open my terminal and start up using `claude code`, `opencode`, `pi`, or any other local client I want to send bits to their server.

Now, having done some work with other clients, I can kind of see the point of this change (to play devils' advocate): their subscription limits likely assume aggregate usage among all users doing X amount of coding, which when used with their own cli tool for coding works especially well with client side and service caching and tool-calls log filtering— something 3rd party clients also do to varying effectivness.

So I can imagine a reason why they might make this change, but again, I thought I was subscribing to a prepaid account where I can use their service within certain session limits, and I see no reason why the cli tool on my laptop would matter then.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#45
post #17

Can't Opencode just modify their implementation to use the anthropic claude code SDK directly? The issue is they were spoofing oauth. I tried OpenCode before this whole drama and immediately noticed the oauth spoofing and never authorized it. Doesn't opencode speak ACP? https://agentclientprotocol.com/overview/agents

It already does.

You can use the Anthropic API in any tool, but these users wanted to use the claude code subscription.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#46
post #29

I am sure the company is going to get very upset at people no longer paying who were using their product in a way that they did not intend. Just going to be heartbroken. I will never understand the people that make a big deal about "I will never support this business again because of x" when X not something the company ever officially said they cared about. In all seriousness, I really don't think it should be a cont…

To me it's very easy to understand why people would be upset and post about it online.

1. The company did something the customers did not like.

2. The company's reputation has value.

3. Therefore highlighting the unpopular move online, and throwing shade at the company so to speak, is (alongside with "speaking with your wallet") one of the few levers customers have to push companies to do what they want them to do.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#47

They did not. Anthropic is protecting its huge asset: the Claude Code value chain, which has proven itself to be a winner among devs (me included, after trying everything under the sun in 2025). If anything, Anthropic's mistake is that they are incapable of monetizing their great models in the chat market, where ChatGPT reigns: ie. Anthropic did not invest in image generation, Google did and Gemini has a shot at the…

I am pretty sure most people get Anthropic's move. I also think "getting it" is perfectly compatible with being unhappy about it and voicing that opinion online.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#48

After reading this opinion ten times today. Can someone explain to me why OpenCode is a “better harness”? Or is it just because it’s open source that people support it?

All these harnesses are free and grateful for any use they get. It might be worthwhile to try it and see.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#49
> they really, really want to own the entire value chain rather than being relegated to becoming just another "model provider"

This is really the salient point for everything. The models are expensive to train but ultimately worthless if paying customers aren't captive and can switch at will. The issue it that a lot of the recent gains are in the prefill inference, and in the model's RAG, which aren't truly a most (except maybe for Google, if their RAG include Google scholar). That's where the bubble will pop.

Re: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients

#50
post #13

I'll be honest; I'm pretty sure this "mistake" will be completely forgotten by the next month. Their enforcing that their subscription only works with their product should not really come as a surprise to anyone, and the alt-agent users are a small enough minority that they'll get over it.

I’m starting to think you’re right but only because software engineers don’t seem to actually value or care about open source anymore. Apparently we have collectively forgotten how bad it can be to let your tools own you instead of the other way around.

Maybe another symptom of Silicon Valley hustle culture — nobody cares about the long term consequences if you can make a quick buck.

Post reply on HN