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

Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 533 posts

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#411

Post by rovr138 »

vmg12 wrote: post #354
danmaz74 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I compared OpenCode and Claude Code head to head a couple of months ago, Claude Code worked much better for me. I don't know if they closed the gap in the meantime, but for sure Claude Code has improved since then.

OpenCode launched a couple of months ago so that makes sense that it's worse. It's much better than Claude Code now. Somehow for the same model, opencode completes the same work faster than claude code and the ux is much better.

You win by adoption.

Here adoption is a combination on the tool and the model.

If people can’t pay the model to use the tool, they might not use the tool even if it’s better.

That’s what anthropic is doing.

It might be faster, but it’s more expensive.

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#412

Post by realharo »

everfrustrated wrote: post #402
paolomainardi wrote: post #246

Not strictly related, but since Copilot could be the next to violate the TOS, I've asked for an official response here: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/183809 . If someone can help raise this question, it's more than welcome.

GitHub doesn't offer any unlimited style AI model plans so I don't think they'll care. Their pricing is fairly aligned with their costs. This only affects Claude as they try to market their plan as unlimited with various usage rate limits but its clearly costing them a lot more than what they sell it for.

Copilot plan limits are however "per prompt", and prompts that ask the agent to do a lot of stuff with a large context are obviously going to be more expensive to run than prompts that don't.

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#413

Post by rovr138 »

mrbungie wrote: post #306
danmaz74 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their Claude Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open source it now.) "Should have" for what reason? I would be happy if they open sourced Claude Code, but the reality is that Claude Code is what makes Anthropic so relevant in the programming more, much more than the Claude models themselves. Asking them to give it away for free to their competitors se…

Well OpenCode already exists and you can connect it to multiple providers, so you could just say that the agentic CLI harness business model as a service/billable feature is no more. In hindsight I would say it never made sense in the first place.

Except that the cost is better with their harness and looks like people don’t want to fork 5x.

Adoption is how one wins. Look at all the crappy solutions out there that are still around.

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#414

Post by landl0rd »

stingraycharles wrote: post #348
dfabulich wrote: post #112

For folks not following the drama: Anthropic's $200/month subscription for Claude Code is much cheaper than Anthropic's pay-as-you-go API. In a month of Claude Code, it's easy to use so many LLM tokens that it would have cost you more than $1,000 if you'd paid via the API. Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to subscribers? I dunno. But they really want you to use the Claude Code™ CLI with that subscript…

What part of a TOS is ridiculous? Claude Code is obviously a loss leader to them, but developer momentum / market share is important to them and they consider it worth it. What part of “OpenCode broke the TOS of something well defined” makes you think it’s all Anthropic’s fault?

It's probably not a "loss-leader" so much as "somewhat lower margin". Their bizdev guys are doubtless happy to make a switch between lower-margin, higher-multiple recurring revenue versus higher-margin, lower-multiple pay-as-you-go API billing. Corporate customers with contracts doubtless aren't paying like that for the API either. This is not uncommon.

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#415

Post by rovr138 »

dkdcio wrote: post #381
boh wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relative to their competitors who also have comparable models, Anthropic's design choices in effectively managing context with a very well thought out and coherent design, makes them stand out.

(i.e. competitors can still use Claude models but haven’t achieved the same DevEx as CC so far, at least in my opinion and many others) also while I was initially on the “they should open source” boat, and I’m happy Codex CLI did, there are a ton of benefits to keeping to closed source. just look at how much spam and dumb community drama OpenAI employees now have to deal with on GitHub. I increasingly think it’s a sm…

They could open source and not take contributions fwiw.

They could close the issues and only allow discussions.

There was a project mentioned here recently that did just that.

*Edit

It was Ghostty,

"Why users cannot create Issues directly" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46460319

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#416

Post by anamexis »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #360
stingraycharles wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of a TOS is ridiculous? Claude Code is obviously a loss leader to them, but developer momentum / market share is important to them and they consider it worth it. What part of “OpenCode broke the TOS of something well defined” makes you think it’s all Anthropic’s fault?

Poor behavior is still poor behavior even if the relevant ToS aligns with it.

Why is it poor behavior though?

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#417

Post by nomadygnt »

Honestly with how good OpenCode is, this really just makes GitHub copilot the best subscription for the average user. It’s the cheapest. It’s free for students. You get access to all of OpenAI models AND Anthropic models AND Gemini models and you still have a pretty dang good CLI/TUI (OC, not Copilot CLI). And the limits are pretty reasonable. I’ve never hit the limits in a month though admittedly I am not a “five agents at once” kind of vibe coder.

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#419

Post by rovr138 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #401
stingraycharles wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of a TOS is ridiculous? Claude Code is obviously a loss leader to them, but developer momentum / market share is important to them and they consider it worth it. What part of “OpenCode broke the TOS of something well defined” makes you think it’s all Anthropic’s fault?

Do you think Anthropic followed all the ToS of every website on the internet when scraping them for training data?

You justify a wrong thing by attacking something else? Is that the only argument?

Re: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

#420

Post by rovr138 »

heliumtera wrote: post #395
dfabulich wrote: post #112

For folks not following the drama: Anthropic's $200/month subscription for Claude Code is much cheaper than Anthropic's pay-as-you-go API. In a month of Claude Code, it's easy to use so many LLM tokens that it would have cost you more than $1,000 if you'd paid via the API. Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to subscribers? I dunno. But they really want you to use the Claude Code™ CLI with that subscript…

>But they really want you to use the Claude Code™ They definitely want their absolutely proprietary software with sudo privilege on your machine. I wonder why they would want that geeez

it doesn't need sudo privileges...
Post reply on HN