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

441–450 of 752 posts

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

#441

Post by oger »

Both Google and Anthropic are choosing the wrong route here. While I see the formal aspect of abusing an OAuth token and burning through subsidized tokens, this only creates an internal accounting problem in the short term.

Meanwhile the rising popularity of Claws creates a yet untapped new market segment where users spend significant tokens.

A „soft“ migration of users by explaining to them how the API works, how to pay and how to change from OAuth would be way smarter.

The way this plays out right now is that current Claws users are massively penalized by being suspended indefinitely and new users will think twice. And we can expect a solid PR disaster / Streisand effect for the „poor“ model providers like OpenAI or Anthropic.

Commercially choosing the soft route by warning and throttling will be way smarter and possibly generate more long term revenue

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

#442

Post by [deleted] »

cyberax wrote: post #426
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "pr…

[deleted]

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

#443

Post by fancy_pantser »

vincston wrote: post #440
shevy-java wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. Agreed. The lesson is: do not become dependent on Google. Ever. (Unfortunately I still use youtube and a chromium-based browser. Long-term I hope to find alternatives to both problems. Google search I no longer need because Google already ruined it a few years ago; the quality now is just horrible. I can not find anything useful with it anymore.)

What google search alternative have you found? Im trying out ecosia, duckduckgo and brave search, but i find their search results even worse, so in the second query i tend to bang to google..

have you tried Kagi?

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

#444

Post by MrDresden »

vincston wrote: post #440
shevy-java wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. Agreed. The lesson is: do not become dependent on Google. Ever. (Unfortunately I still use youtube and a chromium-based browser. Long-term I hope to find alternatives to both problems. Google search I no longer need because Google already ruined it a few years ago; the quality now is just horrible. I can not find anything useful with it anymore.)

What google search alternative have you found? Im trying out ecosia, duckduckgo and brave search, but i find their search results even worse, so in the second query i tend to bang to google..

Kagi

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

#445

Post by distances »

vincston wrote: post #440
shevy-java wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. Agreed. The lesson is: do not become dependent on Google. Ever. (Unfortunately I still use youtube and a chromium-based browser. Long-term I hope to find alternatives to both problems. Google search I no longer need because Google already ruined it a few years ago; the quality now is just horrible. I can not find anything useful with it anymore.)

What google search alternative have you found? Im trying out ecosia, duckduckgo and brave search, but i find their search results even worse, so in the second query i tend to bang to google..

Have you tried Kagi yet? It's pretty popular among HN folks, and I find it easily worth the price.

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

#446

Post by vineyardmike »

techpression wrote: post #370
vineyardmike wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. I suspect that these plans aren't as intensely subsidized as people assume. I believe that API usage is probably also not subsidized at all. First, yes, subs are probably subsided, but I bet a significant % of users are profitable to serve, especially the "chat" users who don't use dev tools and have short context window conversations. Yes, I think the subs also exist as a driver to get lock-in and market…

As a company with little other (any?) revenue you have to include all costs though. Data centers, power, hardware, salaries, marketing, etc. Not just training models and serving requests. I don’t see how it’s not subsidized substantially considering how much money they’re burning right now (I only base that on their rounds though).

That's not really how people discuss subsidies and finances though. Yea I guess a not-profitable company means that every operation is technically a "subsidy", but again, that's not really what those words mean.

Anthropic (as the ever-chosen example) has explicitly stated they've made more money than they've spent on training when they sell/serve a particular model in the past. They said that the reason they're negative is the next model costs more than the "profit" they've made on the previous one. This wasn't strict financial disclosures, but I'd presume this means that their data center costs (eg. power, hardware, etc) are baked into that, but probably not company-wide costs like marketing.

They do have several sources of revenue, all tied to their models: APIs, Subscriptions, and model licensing. Their licensing and APIs most likely have a positive margin -> the money they make to serve the n+1 customer is more than the cost to serve that customer, on a per-financial-transaction basis. It's speculated that they lose money per-customer to serve the subscriptions, and they eat that cost... for various potential reasons.

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

#447

Post by JumpCrisscross »

cyberax wrote: post #426
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "pr…

> I studied economics in Russia, and the term "dumping" was used in a more general sense as "selling goods or services below their cost"

Oooh! Do you have a recommendation for a translation of a Russian economics text? I’m particularly curious of Soviet-era texts that work on theory without prices.

> correct term for the US is "predatory pricing", and it's also prohibited by the Sherman Act

Sherman prohibits the “restraint of trade or commerce” [1]. The word “price” never appears in its text. In practice, predatory pricing is a tightly-regulated term that doesn’t generally prohibit selling goods below cost

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-3055/pdf/COMPS-305...

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

#448

Post by lelanthran »

jacquesm wrote: post #120
torginus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Isn't the reason companies are doing this because they're offering tokens at a discount, provided they're spent through their tooling? Then maybe they should charge for that instead of banning accounts? Google decided on their own business plan without any guns to their backs. If they decide to create a plan that is subsidized that's entirely on them.

> Then maybe they should charge for that instead of banning accounts?

They do, though - you're free to buy tokens and use Google's AI/LLM via the API?

What OpenClaw was doing was pretending to be a different product (Anti gravity) in order to use the cheaper tier.

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

#449

Post by ekabod »

Gigachad wrote: post #358
somenameforme wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be ironic if LLMs are what saves us all from our digital addictions? There's not much point in shit posting online if there's no confidence that the person you're talking to is even a person. I mean over time I'd imagine they'll be able to tune away from the 'LLM style' chat making it even more ambiguous who is human and who is not, and at which point, I expect many of us might be forced to accept what a…

It’s certainly a losing game. I’ve deleted most of my accounts these days. I think the future is just going to be people retreating in to instant messaging and small group chats where you have physically met the other people.

I think governments should enforce a social network of a maximum 150 direct contacts and setup 3 independent agencies that play the role of gate keepers for content coming from outside this small network. The agencies analyze external content, if 2/3 of them approve a content, it is pass to everybody.

These agencies would each employ thousands of people and paid by the government. All employees will have a mandate of 3 years maximum, managers included.

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

#450

Post by ddalex »

lucianbr wrote: post #421
Aurornis wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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?

The consequences for Google are that the people are misusing the keys and the Google is fixing that. They're not banning anybody using proper API keys
Post reply on HN