one of my account is banned without any reason. I don't even use OpenClaw.
Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
481–490 of 752 posts
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
So every company that is not immediately selling enough to cover its fixed costs and its variable cost should be illegal? Every company and every new initiative must be profitable from day one in your world?
If it's a large company, that can dominate the market by absorbing the losses until competition disappears? Arguably, yes.
The question is over what timescale and volume.
Toyota shouldn't have to sell their first new car off the line for 100 million to pay for the entire manufacturing line.
Your first SAAS customer shouldn't have to pay back all your costs.
Can you plan to break even after your first month of sales? first year? 10 years?
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve often suspected these models of getting dumber when the service is under high load. But I’ve never seen actually measured results or proof. Anybody know of real published data here?
ChatGPT was brutal for it a couple years ago. You could tell when it would go into “lazy mode” during peak usage periods. Suddenly instead of writing the code you asked for it would give some generic bullet points telling you to find a library to do what you asked for and read the documentation.
> ChatGPT was brutal for it a couple years ago. You could tell when it would go into “lazy mode” during peak usage periods.
ChatGPT web has been doing this for a week now, for me. Ask some technical question and get a reply absolutely filled with AI phrases (Not $X, Just $Y, the key insight, the deeper insight, etc) dominating about 50% of the text, with the remaining 50% some generic filler stuff partially related to the tech I asked.
Last night I read through a ChatGPT web response about solutions for a security bootstrapping problem without holding keys/password, and it spat out pages and pages of key insights, all nicely numbered sections with bullet points in each section, without actually answering the question.
Moved to Claude Web immediately, got a usable answer on the first try.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#484Earlier 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.
So you are saying a company should never reinvest profits in the company to support another money losing business until it’s profitable? Should Netflix for instance not invested money from renting DVDs to invest in a streaming service? Apple not use the profits it was making from selling Apple //e’s to create the Mac?
> So you are saying a company should never reinvest profits in the company to support another money losing business until it’s profitable?
If it makes it impossible to set up a competitor? Absolutely, yes.
> Should Netflix for instance not invested money from renting DVDs to invest in a streaming service?
Netflix was not priced below the cost of production from the beginning. You're confusing sustainable pricing and paying off all the capital spending immediately at launch.
A better example is Doordash when it was heavily subsidized by VC money: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23216852 And it now faces several anti-trust lawsuits.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
Costco gets to sidestep a lot of regulations because they technically are a private club with paid membership. The US anti-monopoly laws are also unusually weak. In other countries, selling a $7 chicken if it's subsidized by the sale of other goods can indeed be illegal.
Do you have some countries in mind where that's illegal?
The US, the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits predatory pricing.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
When reading HN I get the impression that a lot of people are convinced monthly plans are very profitable for the companies, I don’t have any numbers but to me it always seemed like a bait and switch or ”bait and make you pay with your data too”.
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…
> 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.
Why would WebChat users need a subscription? It's free; I've even pasted tarballs of entire repos in there, and haven't hit limits!
>
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
Costco gets to sidestep a lot of regulations because they technically are a private club with paid membership. The US anti-monopoly laws are also unusually weak. In other countries, selling a $7 chicken if it's subsidized by the sale of other goods can indeed be illegal.
Do you have some countries in mind where that's illegal?
In Germany, selling goods for less then the one bought them for can be illegal if its used to push competition out on a large scale.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it should be “This is your first and final warning. The next time we catch you, it’s a ban.”. People are building their lives around this stuff and kneejerk bans erode good faith in your platform.
> Then it should be “This is your first and final warning. The next time we catch you, it’s a ban.”. People are building their lives around this stuff and kneejerk bans erode good faith in your platform. This is actually the soft-touch approach: the users of these vibe-coded products need to understand that they are delegating their authority to the tool to work on their behalf. In this case, they delegated to a tool…
Except it's expressly NOT against the TOS of codex to use it via oAuth with Openclaw
(the jury is currently out re Anthropic)
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> using AI for vibes is a fast track to bugs and security incidents
Yes, that's what he said.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#490So 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…
Have you seen the code of OpenClaw?
It would not surprise me if there is a mistake in there somewhere that causes the bot to hammer google auth for the refresh token in a very identifiable manner because noone in that repo is bothering to look at the code before merging. Moved fast, broke things.