Earlier quoted context omitted.
There certainly are jurisdictions where tv providers are legally required to offer channels a la carte.
Not in the US…
And not typically channels that can survive independently
Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
571–580 of 752 posts
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#572Google's Pro service (no idea about ultra and I have no intention to find out) is riddled with 429s. They have generous quotas for sure, but they really give you very low priority. For example, I still dont have access to Gemini 3.1 from that endpoint. It's completely uncharacteristic of Google. I analyzed 6k HTTP requests on the Pro account, 23% of those were hit with 429s. (Though not from Gemini-CLI, but from my o…
I've stopped using Gemini models altogether because of this. I'm using Claude Code with MiniMax M2.5 for a while now and i couldn't be happier. I haven't noticed any drop in output quality and the biggest advantage is that even the $10 is pretty generous. I haven't been hit with rate limit, not even one time. And i'm pretty heavy user. I tried also GLM 5.0 but i hit rate limit there pretty early on.
One thing with GLM 5 is they seem to do this weird thing where when your account is just opened it limits you really heavy, then this gets lifted later.
I had buyers remorse when the first hour or two I kept getting rate limited on GLM5, but since then i've not had a single rate limit and I am using it very heavily.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#573Earlier 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.
This obviously cannot be true, otherwise Costco would have been sued to oblivion for “dumping” their rotisserie chickens.
Forget about Costco, if some people here are so convinced this behavior is illegal they should be going after every fast food company that offers anything like "get a free/cheap xyz with any drink purchase!" Where the subsidy is obvious.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
This isn't typically an area where laws and regulations can work effectively because who knows until after the fact? Taxation laws do deal with this from a different perspective, for example most jurisdictions won't let a company take losses every year forever, as they judge the intent of a corporation. Even this is incredibly complex so I'm not sure how your idea would work, even the term "break even" doesn't have a…
Amazon doesn’t for the most part deliver shopping on top of AWS.
Amazon runs two sets of infrastructure “CDO” and “AWS”. It’s a myth that Amazon used excess capacity to start AWS. AWS was always built out as separate infrastructure outside of AWS.
Some Amazon services do run on AWS. But when Amazon runs workloads on AWS, for internal accounting, they are considered a customer.
Source: former employee at AWS
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#575Earlier 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.
So it would be illegal for Google but legal for Anthropic?
What about OpenAI?
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
The -p flag should be fine, so long as you don't use their oauth in a third-party tool. Gemini also supports A2A for this sort of thing.
But the question is - why is the -p flag fine? It hits the same endpoints with the same OAuth token and same quotas. Comments section here and on related news from Anthropic seems to be centered around the idea that the reason for these bans is that it burns tokens quickly, while their plans are subsidized. What changes with the -p flag? You're just using cli instead of HTTP. Are the metrics from their cli more valua…
I assume that -p is the same that "codex exec".
The difference is that in this case the agent loop is executed, which has all the caching and behaviour guarantees. What I assume OpenClaw is doing is calling the endpoint directly while retaining its own "agent logic" so it doesn't follow whatever conventions is the backend expecting.
How important is that difference, I can't say, but aside the cost factor I assume Google doesn't want to subsidize agents that aren't theirs and in some way "the competition".
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#577Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tool thing is kind of infuriating at the moment. I've been using Claude on the command line so I can use my subscription. It's fine, but it also feels kind of silly, like I'm looking at ccusage and it seems like I'm using way more $ in tokens than I'm paying for with the subscription. Which is a win for me, but, I don't really feel like Claude Code is such a compelling product that it's going to keep me locked in…
> I dunno, it seems like way more cost effective to use the first party tools but I'm not sure why they really want that. Are the third party tools just really inefficient with API usage or something? No, the first party tools, even if they used the same number of tokens , gives them valuable data for their training. Essentially, the first party tools are subsidised because it saves them money on gathering even more…
Whether the tool is first-party or third-party, they still see the entirety of the prompt, which is where the valuable training data is.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#578I can confirm, happened to me a few days ago
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#579Earlier 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…
> 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 marke…
One thing to remember is that not all users are going to max out their plan.
This is more likely to occur on $20 plans though, especially since those are often necessary to unlock the more useful features (e.g. deep research) so people might be paying for that even if they don't actually use the tokens.
OTOH someone who's paying $200 will likely want to squeeze the most out of their subscription for that amount of money. So I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that $20 users are subsidizing the $200 ones.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#580Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it also shows that Google did not plan for rate limiting / throttling of high usage customers. There is a (pretty generous and imo reasonable) request quota that reset every 24h
There is consensus on r/gemini that the window is a matter of hours now, not 24h. I subscribe to the AI Pro plan. I knew of a published limit of 100 Pro prompts per day, but before this month it seemed they were relaxed about it. I have now started to be rate limited on Pro when nowhere near that quota, due to too many prompts within a short time window (probably due to short prompts and not aggregating my questions)…
I don't know why you rely on some Reddit consensus when you can just open Gemini CLI and enter /stats to get the confirmation that you get 200 Pro requests per 24h, and the counter starts when you do your first request.
Unless there is something I'm missing