3 ms·

This seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't really understand why Windsurf, owned by OpenAI (allegedly), should expect to have API access to their main competit

This seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't really understand why Windsurf, owned by OpenAI (allegedly), should expect to have API access to their main competitor's API. People can still bring their own key and use whatever models they want in that way.

BoorishBears 1y ago
It doesn't make sense and the co-founder is being an intentionally crappy communicator. He's trying to paint it as removing access to something everyone gets by default, but in reality it's removing special treatment that they were previously giving Windsurf. The default Anthropic rate limit tiers don't support something Windsurf sized, and right now getting increased rate limits outside of their predefined tiers is an uphill battle because of how badly they're compute constrained.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- consumer451 1y ago
  > Earlier this week, Windsurf said that Anthropic cut its direct access to Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Claude 3.7 Sonnet, two of the more popular AI models for coding, forcing the startup to find third-party computing providers on relatively short notice. Windsurf said it was disappointed in Anthropic’s decision and that it might cause short-term instability for users trying to access Claude via Windsurf. As a Windsurf user, maybe Sonnet 3.x models are slower right now, but they don't require BYOK like 4 does. So this is a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Anthropic did not cut them off, they seem to have continued honoring existing quota on previous agreements. What did Windsurf think was going to happen with this particular exit? Also, how embarrassing is this for OpenAI that it's even a big deal?
  - BoorishBears 1y ago
    They could have moved to Bedrock or Vertex, which both resell Claude access and have autonomy in who they allocate higher rate limits to. But they're also crunched on Claude 4 capacity, if not more so than Anthropic's first-party access
tuyguntn 1y ago
This seems odd to me, I don't expect bakery to reject selling me a bread this morning, because I started working in another bakery nearby.
- charlie0 1y ago
  No, but if YOU opened up a bakery and were packing their bread and re-selling it, they might not like that. This happened before and it's not great. https://www.businessinsider.com/restaurant-accused-reselling-costco-pizza-at-700-percent-markup-report-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/restaurant-accused-reselling...
- freehorse 1y ago
  This is more like about cutting you off reselling their bread, which would be reasonable.
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    Is it? Grocery and department stores routinely have brands that compete with those they resell — but they’re not cut off for that. Eg, Kroger operates its own bakery and resells bread. What makes technology unlike those?
    - smileeeee 1y ago
      Stores regularly sell boxes of things labelled "not for individual resale". Here, windsurf would be the shopkeeper selling individual chewing gum strips out of the big package of 10x 5 strips.
    - freehorse 1y ago
      I am not saying that reselling does not happen, obviously there is. But this doesn't disallow a bakery to stop selling to Kroger for resale if they do not want to. A company makes their own assessment if such deals are good for them or not. Anthropic determined that this deal is not good for them.
  - tuyguntn 1y ago
hiddencost 1y ago
IDK, I pay someone money for a service, I would like the terms of our contract to protect me from getting cut off capriciously. The fact that Anthropic is selling a service without providing a contract that provides consumers with protections kinda sucks?
- hiddencost 1y ago
  Also, like, anti competitive behavior is kinda ... Illegal?
  - threeseed 1y ago
    No it's not. It's only illegal if you are found guilty of it. And for that to happen you need to be (a) an effective monopoly, (b) have a negative direct or indirect impact on consumers, (c) large enough for regulators to care about and (d) be in a regulatory environment that priorities this enforcement.
  - rafram 1y ago
    Not all anticompetitive practices are illegal, but this isn’t even anticompetitive. Anticompetitive practices are actions that reduce competitiveness in a market by entrenching your dominance over the (usually smaller) competition. Not allowing your competitor to buy your product arguably increases competition? It pushes them to improve their own product to be as good as yours.

BoorishBears 1y ago

It doesn't make sense and the co-founder is being an intentionally crappy communicator. He's trying to paint it as removing access to something everyone gets by default, but in reality it's removing special treatment that they were previously giving Windsurf. The default Anthropic rate limit tiers don't support something Windsurf sized, and right now getting increased rate limits outside of their predefined tiers is an uphill battle because of how badly they're compute constrained.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
consumer451 1y ago
> Earlier this week, Windsurf said that Anthropic cut its direct access to Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Claude 3.7 Sonnet, two of the more popular AI models for coding, forcing the startup to find third-party computing providers on relatively short notice. Windsurf said it was disappointed in Anthropic’s decision and that it might cause short-term instability for users trying to access Claude via Windsurf. As a Windsurf user, maybe Sonnet 3.x models are slower right now, but they don't require BYOK like 4 does. So this is a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Anthropic did not cut them off, they seem to have continued honoring existing quota on previous agreements. What did Windsurf think was going to happen with this particular exit? Also, how embarrassing is this for OpenAI that it's even a big deal?
- BoorishBears 1y ago
  They could have moved to Bedrock or Vertex, which both resell Claude access and have autonomy in who they allocate higher rate limits to. But they're also crunched on Claude 4 capacity, if not more so than Anthropic's first-party access

tuyguntn 1y ago

This seems odd to me, I don't expect bakery to reject selling me a bread this morning, because I started working in another bakery nearby.

charlie0 1y ago
No, but if YOU opened up a bakery and were packing their bread and re-selling it, they might not like that. This happened before and it's not great. https://www.businessinsider.com/restaurant-accused-reselling-costco-pizza-at-700-percent-markup-report-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/restaurant-accused-reselling...
freehorse 1y ago
This is more like about cutting you off reselling their bread, which would be reasonable.
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  Is it? Grocery and department stores routinely have brands that compete with those they resell — but they’re not cut off for that. Eg, Kroger operates its own bakery and resells bread. What makes technology unlike those?
  - smileeeee 1y ago
    Stores regularly sell boxes of things labelled "not for individual resale". Here, windsurf would be the shopkeeper selling individual chewing gum strips out of the big package of 10x 5 strips.
  - freehorse 1y ago
    I am not saying that reselling does not happen, obviously there is. But this doesn't disallow a bakery to stop selling to Kroger for resale if they do not want to. A company makes their own assessment if such deals are good for them or not. Anthropic determined that this deal is not good for them.
- tuyguntn 1y ago

hiddencost 1y ago

IDK, I pay someone money for a service, I would like the terms of our contract to protect me from getting cut off capriciously. The fact that Anthropic is selling a service without providing a contract that provides consumers with protections kinda sucks?

hiddencost 1y ago
Also, like, anti competitive behavior is kinda ... Illegal?
- threeseed 1y ago
  No it's not. It's only illegal if you are found guilty of it. And for that to happen you need to be (a) an effective monopoly, (b) have a negative direct or indirect impact on consumers, (c) large enough for regulators to care about and (d) be in a regulatory environment that priorities this enforcement.
- rafram 1y ago
  Not all anticompetitive practices are illegal, but this isn’t even anticompetitive. Anticompetitive practices are actions that reduce competitiveness in a market by entrenching your dominance over the (usually smaller) competition. Not allowing your competitor to buy your product arguably increases competition? It pushes them to improve their own product to be as good as yours.