That's should be illegal. They used the excuse it was there to take or just burnt evidence literally of pirated books.
What they are doing is implicitly changing the contract of usage of their services.
Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
751–760 of 827 posts
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#752There is a new breed of agent-agnostic tools that call the Claude Code CLI as if it's an API (I'm currently trying out vibe-kanban). This could be used to adhere to Claude's TOS while still allowing the user to switch AI companies at a moment's notice. Right now there's limited customizability in this approach, but I think it's not far-fetched to see FAR more integrated solutions in the future if the lock-in trend co…
Could you think of it as ClaudeCode is just a tool used by another agent and that other agent is instructed to use the ClaudeCode tool for everything? Makes sense, i don't see why we can't have agents use these agents for us, just like the AI companies are proposing to use their agents in place of everything else we currently use.
Also, why not distribute implementation documentation so claudecode can write OpenCode itself and use your oauth token. Now you have opencode for personal use, you didn't get it from anywhere your agent created it for you and only you.
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#753Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tie-in sales between software and services is not different from price dumping. I disagree, in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together. And in many cases do not work independent of eachother. There are countless cases of this, that what you are paying for is a thing that is made up of a piece of software and a serverside c…
> in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together And in many cases like Claude Code and the Anthropic models, they can and do work perfectly independently. > True but the opposite is also true, just because you don't like the terms it does not make it illegal. This is not me "not liking it". Like I said somewhere else in this th…
Could you clarify exactly what you think is an illegal tie-in? Because it seems like what you are upset about is literally the opposite -- Anthropic unbundling their offerings so you aren't required to buy the ability to offer third party access when you purchase the ability to use Claude code and their other models. Unless I really misunderstand you, your complaint is literally thaf
The laws prohibiting tie-ins don't make it illegal to sell two products that work well together. That's literally what the laws are designed to make you do -- seperate products into seperate pieces. The problem tie-in laws were designed to combat was situations like Microsoft making a popular OS then making a mediocre spreadsheet program and pushing the cost of that spreadsheet program into the cost of buying the OS. That way consumers would go "well it's expensive but I get excel with it so it's ok" and even if someone else made a slightly better spreadsheet they didn't have the chance to convince users because they had to buy it all as one package.
Anthropic would be doing something much closer to that if they did what you wanted. They'd be saying: hey we have this neat Claude code thing you all want to use but you can't buy that without also purchasing third party access. Now some company offering a cheaper/better third party usage product doesn't get the chance to convince you because anthropic forced you to buy that just to get claude code.
Ultimately this change unbundled products the opposite of a tie-in. What is upsetting about it is that it no longer feels to you like you are getting a good deal because you now have to fork over a bunch more cash to keep getting what you want. But that's not illegal, that's just not offering good value for money.
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#754The fundamental tension here is that AI companies are selling compute at a loss to capture market share, while users are trying to maximize value from their subscriptions. From a backend perspective, the subscription model creates perverse incentives. Heavy users (like developers running agentic workflows) consume far more compute than casual users, but pay the same price. Third-party tools amplify this asymmetry. An…
is the tooling moat and secret sauce in Claude Code the client? That's super risky given the language it was written in ( javascript ). I bet Claude Code itself can probably reverse engineer the minimized javascript, trace the logic, and then name variables something sensible for readability. Then the secret sauce is exposed for all to see.
Also, can you not setup a proxy for the cert and a packet sniffer to watch whatever ClaudeCode is doing with respect to API access? To me, if you have "secret sauce" you have to keep it server side and make the client as dumb as possible. Especially if your client is executes as Javascript.
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#755I pay a Max subscription since a long time, I like their model but I hate their tools: - Claude Desktop looks like a demo app. It's slow to use and so far behind the Codex app that it's embarassing. - Claude Code is buggy has hell and I think I've never used a CLI tool that consume so much memory and CPU. Let's not talk about the feature parity with other agents. - Claude Agent SDK is poorly documented, half finished…
>I'm not going to pay 500 USD of API credits every months, no way. I have to move to a different provider
It's funny, you are probably in the cohort that made Antropic have to pursue this type of decision so aggressively.
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#756Claude Code is a lock-in play. Use Cursor or OpenCode.
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#757Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably doesn't help that the creator of OpenClaw just got hired by Anthropic's competitor. This sounds like engineering, finance, and legal got together and decided they were in an untenable position if OpenAI started nudging OpenClaw to burn even more tokens on Anthropic (or just never optimize) + continually updated workarounds to using subscription auth. But I'm sure OpenAI would never do something like that.…
> OpenAI started nudging OpenClaw to burn even more tokens on Anthropic Not possible: OpenClaw is run by a foundation, and is open source, which means OpenAI has no leverage to do such a thing.
Because open source has always been completely independent of unrelated corporate entities who employ people to work on it?
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#758Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course it was. You'd have to point me to an authoritative source on that (explicitly saying users are allowed to use their models via private APIs in apps of the user's choosing). If something isn't explicitly provided in the contract, then it can be changed at any point in any way without notice. Honestly, I'm not big on capitalism in general, but I don't understand why people should expect companies to provide…
> I don't understand why people should expect companies to provide things exactly the way they want at exactly the prices they would like to be charged This is a gross misrepresentation of my argument. I wouldn't be complaining at all if they went up and said "sorry, we are not going to subsidize anyone anymore, so the prices are going up", and I wouldn't be complaining if they came up and said "sorry, using a third…
It's not tie-in. They give users 2 choices: a) use their service via their public API, with the client(s) of their choice, at the regular price point; b) use the apps they provide, which use a private API, at a discounted price point. The apps are technically negative value for them from a purely upfront cost perspective as their use trigger these discounts and they're free by themselves.
Good on you re that cancel. May you find greener grass elsewhere.
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#759Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OpenAI started nudging OpenClaw to burn even more tokens on Anthropic Not possible: OpenClaw is run by a foundation, and is open source, which means OpenAI has no leverage to do such a thing.
Because open source has always been completely independent of unrelated corporate entities who employ people to work on it?
Because anyone can actually check the code, which means if there's any funny business, someone will come across it eventually and blow it open.
Re: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use
#760Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no monthly limit, it (currently) is a weekly and 5-hourly limit. If they allow anyone to use any tool with their subscription service, you could have a system (like OpenClaw) which involves 0 human interaction and is constantly consuming 100% of your token limit, then waiting until limits reset to do it all over again. It seems fairly clear that Anthropic is probably losing money on such usage patterns. Once…
There are 4 weeks in a month. 4 periods of weekly limits, is a monthly limit.
That's... not how that works. Might as well say Anthropic has a 63 day limit (cuz that's 9 weeks).
The point of the first half of my comment is that you cannot chew through your tokens in 15 days, because although the billing cycle is monthly, the limits are not.