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

421–430 of 752 posts

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

#421

Post by lucianbr »

Aurornis wrote: post #393
tabs_or_spaces wrote: post #319

So the timeline is basically * User uses Google oauth to integrate their open claw * user gets banned from using Google AI services with no warning * user still gets charged If you go backwards, getting charged for services you can't access is rough. I feel sorry for those who are deeply integrated into Google services or getting banned on their main accounts. It's not a great situation. Also, getting banned without…

> * Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? OpenClaw went from virtually unheard of to a sensation in a couple weeks. There was intense commit activity and the main author bragged about not even reading the code himself. It was all heavily AI driven and moving at an extreme rate. Everyone was competing to get their commits in because they wanted to be a part of it. The entire project was a fast and furious…

That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on.

But I guess it's only ok when you work on regular joe facing projects, where the consequences of bugs are on powerless users. If the consequences are on Google, well, that's not acceptable now is it?

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

#422

Post by Palmik »

Who here reads the full terms of service of every Google product they use? The fact that they disabled the whole Google account without warning is damning.

They could have easily just blocked the Gemini / Antigravity use and and/or sent a "final warning" kind of email beforehand.

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

#423

Post by sfink »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #138
CuriouslyC wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI and the Chinese companies let you all you can eat openly. Anthropic's lead vs OAI is slight and these things are going to homogenize quickly. The market is going open and the people trying to keep it closed are just generating ill will pointlessly.

>OpenAI and the Chinese companies let you all you can eat openly. You say this, but I guarantee that when they do offer a plan similar to Google/Anthropic's dedicated coding "unlimited" subscription, they will do the exact same thing. Maybe they will let OpenClaw in as a first party because of their partnership with the creator.

OpenClaw is a massive liability. Regardless of the creator's employment, OpenAI is not dumb enough to officially release a ticking PR bomb like that. I don't know what they'll do with the creator, I guess pump him for ideas and keep him off the streets. (Simply telling him to design out the same thing in a form that is releasable should be enough to keep him quiet for a good long time.)

OpenClaw doesn't need the creator in order to continue to be a reputation risk nightmare for all of the AI companies, though.

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

#424

Post by marcus_holmes »

Thorrez wrote: post #294
marcus_holmes wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree with you if this was some new SaaS just opening its doors. But Google are banning entire accounts, with years, even decades, of personal history, photos, even phone accounts and app development projects. They very easily could just negate the anti-gravity access, which would be much, much more reasonable.

>But Google are banning entire accounts, with years, even decades, of personal history, photos, even phone accounts and app development projects. Source? It seems to me only the anti-gravity access was blocked. The link says > Our product engineering team has confirmed that your account was suspended from using our Antigravity service. > there’s no way we can restore our accounts to use Antigravity anymore yeah? Disc…

Hmm, you might be right. I'm reading the forum thread linked in the OP.

> ”Thank you for your continued patience as we have thoroughly investigated your account access issue. Please be assured that we conducted a comprehensive investigation, exploring every possible avenue to restore your access.

> Our product engineering team has confirmed that your account was suspended from using our Antigravity service. This suspension affects your access to the Gemini CLI and any other service that uses the Cloud Code Private API.

> 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 policy, and we are unable to reverse the suspension. I am truly sorry to share this difficult news with you.”

I totally read that (and the other posts in that forum) as a complete suspension of their whole Google Account (another person mentions their GCP access suspended).

But I could be reading it wrong and it's just their AI account (and any service that uses that... I'm not clear on where those boundaries are?)

Still not going to risk signing up for this, because I cannot risk my Google account getting suspended or banned for something I wasn't aware of in the ToS. No warnings is still drastic, even if it's just part of the account.

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

#425

Post by renewiltord »

kuboble wrote: post #415
renewiltord wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's a bad analogy. For one - smoking does very high permanent damage to a car interior. Two - the usage pattern was Shaun's toc but not obviously against the spirit. More like "you can use my car to drive around as much as you want" And then going: Obviously I didn't mean driving to another coast on a highway

More like "you can use my car to drive around as much as you want so long as you don't drive to another coast on a highway" and then you drive to another coast on a highway and get mad when I won't give you my car next time.

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

#426

Post by cyberax »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #365
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.

> Offering goods or services below the cost of their production is often illegal, though. It's called "dumping" No. Dumping is an international-trade term. It doesn’t even require pricing below cost, just aiming “to increase market share in a foreign market by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation where the exporter will be able to unilaterally dictate price and quality of the product” [1].…

I'm sorry, my fault. I studied economics in Russia, and the term "dumping" was used in a more general sense as "selling goods or services below their cost".

Russian laws officially use the term "monopolistically low prices", and prohibit them if the entity engaging in such pricing holds a dominating presence in the market (and not necessarily for the goods that are being underpriced).

A correct term for the US is "predatory pricing", and it's also prohibited by the Sherman Act. For much the same reason, a large entity can destroy competition by accepting losses from selling goods below the cost. The border between loss leaders and predatory pricing is, as usual, very blurred.

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

#429

Post by walletdrainer »

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.

Tying is typically perfectly legal in both the EU and the US.

This isn’t even vaguely similar to illegal tying. The biggest problem being that the products almost certainly aren’t dissimilar enough to be considered “tied” at all.

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

#430

Post by LegateLaurie »

torginus wrote: post #107
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…

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…

Given how popular OpenClaw is (and that OpenClaw itself supports antigravity), I think it's shortsighted to not publicly state that it's not allowed and to warn users. Permanently banning people from Antigravity (much like any Google product) feels really harsh.
Post reply on HN