431–440 of 827 posts
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.
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.
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 see how it's fair. If I'm paying for usage, and I'm using it, why should Anthropic have a say on which client I use? I pay them $100 a month and now for some reason I can't use OpenCode? Fuck that.
You are not paying for usage. You are paying for usage via their application.
If their business plan is based on how quickly a human can enter requests and react to the results, and Claude Code is optimized for that, why should you be allowed to use an alternative client that e.g. always tries to saturate the token limits?
Cancelled my Claude and bought GLM coding plan + Codex.
Your core customers are clearly having a blast building their own custom interfaces, so obviously the thing to do is update TOS and put a stop to it! Good job lol. I know, I know, customer experience, ecosystem, gardens, moats, CC isn't fat, just big boned, I get it. Still a dick move. This policy is souring the relationship, and basically saying that Claude isn't a keeper. I'll keep my eye-watering sub for now becau…
So basically you are saying Anthropic models are indispensable but you are too cheap to pay for it.
They are literally alienating a large percentage of OpenClaw, NanoClaw, PicoClaw, customers because those customers will surely not be willing to pay API pricing, which is at least 6-10x Max Plan pricing (for my usage).
This isn’t too surprising to me since they probably have a direct competitor to openclaw et al in the works right now, but until then I am cancelling my subscription and porting my nanoclaw fork with mem0 integration to work with OpenAI instead.
Thats not a “That’ll teach ‘em” statement, it is just my own cost optimization. I am quite fond of Anthropic’s coding models and might still subscribe again at the $20 level, but they just priced me out for personal assistant, research, and 90% of my token use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I asked both to help me with a hardware bug. Codex kept trying things, being sure of what the problem is every time, and every time making it worse. Opus went off and browsed my dependencies for ten minutes, and came back and solved the problem firs try.
I generally don't like the way codex approaches coding itself so I just feed its review comments back in to Claude Code and off we go.
It might be some confirmation bias here on my part but it feels as if companies are becoming more and more hostile to their API users. Recently Spotify basically nuked their API with zero urgency to fix it, redit has a whole convoluted npm package your obliged to use to create a bot, Facebook requires you to provide registered company and tax details even for development with some permissions. Am I just old man screa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how it's fair. If I'm paying for usage, and I'm using it, why should Anthropic have a say on which client I use? I pay them $100 a month and now for some reason I can't use OpenCode? Fuck that.
> If I'm paying for usage You are not paying for usage. You are paying for usage via their application. If their business plan is based on how quickly a human can enter requests and react to the results, and Claude Code is optimized for that, why should you be allowed to use an alternative client that e.g. always tries to saturate the token limits?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I asked both to help me with a hardware bug. Codex kept trying things, being sure of what the problem is every time, and every time making it worse. Opus went off and browsed my dependencies for ten minutes, and came back and solved the problem firs try.
Funnily enough I've been using Codex 5.3 on maximum thinking for bug hunting and code reviews and it's been really good at it (it's just seem to have a completely different focus than Opus.) I generally don't like the way codex approaches coding itself so I just feed its review comments back in to Claude Code and off we go.
In my experience, two different models together works much better than one, that's why this subscription banning is distressing. I won't be able to use a tool that can use both models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how many people have a subscription and don’t fully utilize it. That’s free money for them, too.
The trick is that the jump goes from 20 to 100 Dollar for the Pro to Max subscription. Pro is not enough for me, Max is too much. 60 would be ideal, but currently at 100 it's worth the cost. But this is how every subscription works. Most people lose money on their gym subscription, but the convenience takes us.