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

401–410 of 752 posts

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

#401

Post by erashu212 »

Everyone's debating whether Google's TOS is fair.

The real issue is that we're building entire development workflows on subsidized inference that was never priced to be used this way.

OpenClaw burns tokens at a rate these $200/month plans were never designed for.

The fix isn't nicer ban policies, it's either honest API pricing or local models good enough for the job.

The 0.5B-3B parameter range is already surprisingly capable for code analysis tasks.

That's where this is heading whether Google likes it or not.

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

#402

Post by kuboble »

jacquesm wrote: post #133
NewsaHackO wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the issue is the same as Anthropic. They do charge for it though their API. The users, however, want to use the discounted "unlimited" flat rate through the first-party app instead, then get mad when they are told they have to use the same API every other third-party app does.

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.

No, it's more like stuffing your pockets in all-you-can-eat buffet

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

#403

Post by szundi »

erashu212 wrote: post #401

Everyone's debating whether Google's TOS is fair. The real issue is that we're building entire development workflows on subsidized inference that was never priced to be used this way. OpenClaw burns tokens at a rate these $200/month plans were never designed for. The fix isn't nicer ban policies, it's either honest API pricing or local models good enough for the job. The 0.5B-3B parameter range is already surprisingl…

[dead]

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

#404

Post by overgard »

cogman10 wrote: post #22
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…

Oh man. What a wonderful way to stop people from using your LLM. All these AI companies trying to get everyone to be locked into their toolchains is just hilariously short sighted. Particularly for dev tools. It's the sure path to get devs to hate your product. And for what? The devs are already paying a pretty penny to use your LLM. Why do you also need to force them to using your toolkit?

The tool thing is kind of infuriating at the moment. I've been using Claude on the command line so I can use my subscription. It's fine, but it also feels kind of silly, like I'm looking at ccusage and it seems like I'm using way more $ in tokens than I'm paying for with the subscription. Which is a win for me, but, I don't really feel like Claude Code is such a compelling product that it's going to keep me locked in to their model, so I don't know why they're creating such a steep discount to get me to use it. I'm perfectly fine using Codex's tools, or whatever. I dunno, it seems like way more cost effective to use the first party tools but I'm not sure why they really want that. Are the third party tools just really inefficient with API usage or something?

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

#405

Post by danpalmer »

BoorishBears wrote: post #367
gck1 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused by this repeat analogy here. There's 0 offerings with all you can eat type of deal. No AI service is offering that. They all have amounts defined in their service agreements of how much you can eat and in what intervals.

I'm confused why the presence (or lack of) a limit is relevant to the pretty simple analogy... A buffet is saying "pay $X to eat food one plate at a time [up to 100 lbs of food]", and you show up and start shoveling the food into your bag. Does not really matter if we remove the 100lbs part. Could you technically eat the same amount of food one plate a time? Sure. But if everyone does this, $X needs to be significant…

I don't think there's even a limit. The limit is a soft limit enforced through the UX of the tool, the features it provides, or even how it's marketed. There are always going to be high cost users and low cost users, service providers know this and build it into their revenue modelling.

Another example is home internet connections. They're unmetered where I live, but I'm also told I can't run public internet services on it. Why? Because with "personal/home usage" there's just a practical limit to how much I can use my ~1Gbps pipe, whereas if I ran a public service I might max out that pipe. I'm a pretty heavy user (~60GB a day), but that's a world of difference from the >10TB I could theoretically hit.

> but I really don't get why people are in a hurry to ruin a good thing

This is the crux of it. I like services limited by practicality because they're a heck of a lot cheaper. If people want more usage there's always API billing, they just have to pay for what they're actually using.

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

#406

Post by kuboble »

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).

The ban hammer is the scary part.

I am afraid of using any Google services in experimental way from the fear that my whole Google existence will be banned.

I think blocking access temporarily with a warning would be much more suitable. Unblocking could be even conditioned on a request to pay for the abused tokens

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

#407

Post by overgard »

therealmarv wrote: post #132
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…

How about giving the user a big warning to not do that and then block the account if the user continues. This total blocks are crazy. Especially for people who use their Google account for 20+ years or something.

It seems like a temp ban here would be totally reasonable, like, "we disabled your account for a day here's why, don't do it again". Permanent though, eek!

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

#408

Post by kuboble »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #173
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.

Just because all you can eat buffet exists doesn't mean that the food is free or you can take away the food. The food exists in discounted rate only if you consider it unlimited food. For normal folks they make profit. Claude code could possibly make profit because the average usage doesn't come close to exhausting the limits.

This exactly. I'm using 10% of my max plan on the weeks that I'm working a lot. Hit a 4-hour limit once over few months and never let it run overnight. And I'm very happy with my subscription

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

#409

Post by salawat »

qeternity wrote: post #102
salawat wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tradition warrants a negotiation phase when one party wishes to change the terms of an agreement, or becomes cognizant that the counterparty may wish to do the same. The tech industry has gorged on non-participation in this facet of contract law, instead resorting to all or nothing clickwrap, which is, barring existential or egregious circumstances, unwarranted, and in my opinion, is fundamentally unreasonable, and s…

> Tradition warrants a negotiation phase when one party wishes to change the terms of an agreement, or becomes cognizant that the counterparty may wish to do the same. They didn't change the agreement. One party violated it, and the other party withdrew as a result. This is so vanilla. But people will moan because they want subsidized tokens.

I don't have a pony in this race my good poster, I just calls it how I see it, and I have a long history of calling out the fundamentally abusive character on non-negotiable one way contracting, and the ill effects it has on society.

Only people moaning here seem to be a bunch of wannabe Google PO's upset that people are handing machines a data construct they are designed to accept, and the machine is accepting, and using the token the way they were designed. Looks for some reason Google appears to resent that their lack of automating checks to deny those OAuth tokens is being utilized, and seems to think termination of customers who could probably be corrected with a simple message is the most reasonable response.

With instincts like that, it makes me happy everyday that for my needs, I can make do with doing things on my own hardware I've collected over the years. The Cloud has too much drama potential tied up in it.

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

#410

Post by ifyouknewone »

3.1 has made running the API so cheap that this doesn't really matter.

Who in their right might thinks it's a good idea to use something they pay a NAMED SUBCRIPTION FOR as a secondary engine in another tool?

Like, it's hilarious some of you guys think it's OC's fault for this.

It's open source software, with extensive documentation that anything you do with it being at your own risk.

It's no one's fault but the people plugging their oauth into this thing like complete MORONS lol

Post reply on HN