4 ms·

> Anyway, this is embarrassing for Anthropic. Why? A few times in this thread I hear people saying "they shouldn't have done this" or something similar but not

> Anyway, this is embarrassing for Anthropic. Why? A few times in this thread I hear people saying "they shouldn't have done this" or something similar but not given any reason why. Listing features you like of another product isn't a reason they shouldn't have done it. It's absolutely not embarrassing, and if anything it's embarrassing they didn't catch and do it sooner.

ehnto 9mo ago
As a user it is because I can no longer use the subscription with the greater tooling ecosystem. As for Anthropic, they might not want to do this as they may lose users who decide to use another provider, since without the cost benefit of the subscription it doesn't make sense to stay with them and also be locked into their tooling.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- what 9mo ago
  The subscription is for their products? If you want to use their models in another product you can pay for the API usage.
  - ehnto 9mo ago
    From my perspective, I was paying for the model. This is kind of a pointless distinction now though. It was working and now it isn't, and the outcome is that some of their customers are unhappy and might move on. API access is not the same product offering as the subscription, so that's probably a practical option but not a comparable one.
    - _zoltan_ 9mo ago
      you yourself admit that API access is a separate product. if you want to use 3rd party tooling, pay for API access. if you want to use (most likely heavily) subsidized subscription plans, use their ecosystem. it's that simple.
      - ehnto 9mo ago
        No one said it was complicated, and you might be imagining that I care more than I do. However if you can't understand why having a feature of a paid product removed is dissatisfying, then I cannot help you understand any further. I am surprised that anyone would think the "product" is the web interface and cli tool though, the product is very clearly the model. The difference in all options is merely how you access it.
        rovr138 9mo ago
        > having a feature of a paid product removed is dissatisfying It wasn't a feature. It was a loophole. They closed it. There are multiple products. Besides models, there's a desktop app, there's claude code. They have subscriptions.
        ehnto 9mo ago
        Feature, attribute, loophole. I really doubt we fundamentally disagree on the situation here. You can use your empathy to understand why people are disappointed, and I will pretend such a detail oriented thread has made me feel content. Anthropic can do what they want, it's their service.
gpm 9mo ago
Because the value proposition that has people pay Anthropic is that it's the best LLM-coding tool around. When you're competing on "we can ban you from using the model we use with the same rate limits we use" everyone knows you have failed to do so. They might or might not currently have the best coding LLM - but they're admitting that whatever moat they thought they were building with claude code is worthless. The best LLM meanwhile seems to change every few months. They're clearly within their rights to do this, but it's also clearly embarrassing and calls into question the future of their business.
- OGEnthusiast 9mo ago
  > Because the value proposition that has people pay Anthropic is that it's the best LLM-coding tool around. Why not just use a local LLM instead? That way you don't have to pay anyone.
  - pdntspa 9mo ago
    Because they still suck at real-world software engineering
  - _zoltan_ 9mo ago
    none can touch any of the top models. none.
- casparvitch 9mo ago
  Is it that it's the best coding tool or the best model? I still get the best (most accurate) results out of anthropic models (but not out of CC).
  - gpm 9mo ago
    Best coding tool is what makes users use something, a good model is just a component of that. I don't think "we have the current best model for coding" is a particularly good business proposition - even assuming it's true. Staying there looks like it's going to be a matter of throwing unsustainable amounts of money at training forever to stay ahead of the competition. Meanwhile the coding tool part looks like it could actually be sticky. People get attached to UIs. People are more effective in the UIs they are experienced with. There's a plausible story that codeveloping the UI and model could result in a better model for that purpose (because it's fine tuned on the UIs interactions). And independently "Claude Code" being the best coding tool around was great for brand recognition. "Open Code with the Opus 4.5 backend - no not the Claude subscription you can't use that - the API" won't be.
dboon 9mo ago
It is embarrassing to restrict an open source tool that is (IMO) a strictly and very superior piece of software from using your model. It is not immoral, like I said, because it's clearly against the ToC; but it's not like OC is stealing anything from Anthropic by existing. It's the same subscription, same usage. Obviously, I have no idea what's going on internally. But it appears to be an issue of vanity rather than financials or theft. I don't think Anthropic is suffering harm from OC's "login" method; the correct response is to figure out why this other tool is better than yours and create better software. Shutting down the other tool, if that's what's in fact happening, is what is embarrassing.
- BoiledCabbage 9mo ago
  > It is embarrassing to restrict an open source tool that is (IMO) a strictly and very superior piece of software from using your model. > Shutting down the other tool, if that's what's in fact happening, is what is embarrassing. To rephrase it different as I feel my question didn't land. It's clear to me that you think it's embarrassing. And it's clear what you think is embarrassing. I'm trying to understand why you think it's embarrassing. I don't think it is at all. Your statements above are simply saying "X is embarrassing because it's embarrassing". Yes I hear that you think it's embarrassing but I don't think it is at all. Do you have a reason you can give why you think it's embarrassing? I think it's very wise and pretty standard to not subsidize people who aren't using your tool. I'm willing to consider arguments differently, but I'm not hearing one. Other than "it just is because it is".
  - dboon 9mo ago
    Why do you like or dislike Diet Coke? At some point, saying what I think is embarrassing is equivalent to saying why. But, to accept your good faith olive branch, one more go: AI is a space full of grift and real potential. Anthropic's pitch is that the potential is really real. So real, in fact, that it will alter what it means to write software. It's a big claim. But a simple way to validate it would be to see if Anthropic themselves are producing more or higher quality software than the rest of the industry. If they aren't, something smells. The makers of the tool, and such a well funded and staffed company, should be the best at using it. And, well, Claude Code sucks. It's a buggy mess. Opencode, on the other hand, is not a buggy mess. It is one of the finest pieces of software I've used in a long time, and I don't mean "for a TUI". And they started writing it after CC was launched. So, to finally answer your question: Opencode is a competitor in a way that brings to question Anthropic's very innermost claim, the transformative nature of AI. I find it embarrassing to answer this question-of-sorts by limply nicking the competitor, rather than using their existence as a call for self improvement. And, Christ, OC is open. It's open source. Anthropic could, at any time, go read the code and do the engineering to make CC just as good. It is embarrassing to be beaten at your own game and then take away the ball. (If that is what is happening. Of course, this could be a misunderstanding, or a careless push to production, or any number of benign things. But those are uninteresting, so let's assume for the sake of argument that it was intentional).
anhner 9mo ago
"Leave the multibillion dollar company alone!"
wiseowise 9mo ago
It is embarrassing, because it means they’re afraid of competition. If CC was so great, at least a fraction of they sell it, they wouldn’t need to do it.
llmslave2 9mo ago
[flagged]
rockatanescu 9mo ago
The Claude plans allow you to send a number of messages to Anthropic models in a specific interval without incurring any extra costs. From Anthropic's "About Claude's Max Plan Usage" page: > The number of messages you can send per session will vary based on the length of your messages, including the size of files you attach, the length of current conversation, and the model or feature you use. Your session-based usage limit will reset every five hours. If your conversations are relatively short and use a less compute-intensive model, with the Max plan at 5x more usage, you can expect to send at least 225 messages every five hours, and with the Max plan at 20x more usage, at least 900 messages every five hours, often more depending on message length, conversation length, and Claude's current capacity. So it's not a "Claude Code" subscription, it's a "Claude" subscription. The only piece of information that might suggest that there are any restrictions to using your subscription to access the models is the part of the Pro plan description that says "Access Claude Code on the web and in your terminal" and the Max plan description that says "Everything in Pro".

ehnto 9mo ago

As a user it is because I can no longer use the subscription with the greater tooling ecosystem. As for Anthropic, they might not want to do this as they may lose users who decide to use another provider, since without the cost benefit of the subscription it doesn't make sense to stay with them and also be locked into their tooling.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
what 9mo ago
The subscription is for their products? If you want to use their models in another product you can pay for the API usage.
- ehnto 9mo ago
  From my perspective, I was paying for the model. This is kind of a pointless distinction now though. It was working and now it isn't, and the outcome is that some of their customers are unhappy and might move on. API access is not the same product offering as the subscription, so that's probably a practical option but not a comparable one.
  - _zoltan_ 9mo ago
    you yourself admit that API access is a separate product. if you want to use 3rd party tooling, pay for API access. if you want to use (most likely heavily) subsidized subscription plans, use their ecosystem. it's that simple.
    - ehnto 9mo ago
      No one said it was complicated, and you might be imagining that I care more than I do. However if you can't understand why having a feature of a paid product removed is dissatisfying, then I cannot help you understand any further. I am surprised that anyone would think the "product" is the web interface and cli tool though, the product is very clearly the model. The difference in all options is merely how you access it.
      - rovr138 9mo ago
        > having a feature of a paid product removed is dissatisfying It wasn't a feature. It was a loophole. They closed it. There are multiple products. Besides models, there's a desktop app, there's claude code. They have subscriptions.
        ehnto 9mo ago
        Feature, attribute, loophole. I really doubt we fundamentally disagree on the situation here. You can use your empathy to understand why people are disappointed, and I will pretend such a detail oriented thread has made me feel content. Anthropic can do what they want, it's their service.

gpm 9mo ago

Because the value proposition that has people pay Anthropic is that it's the best LLM-coding tool around. When you're competing on "we can ban you from using the model we use with the same rate limits we use" everyone knows you have failed to do so. They might or might not currently have the best coding LLM - but they're admitting that whatever moat they thought they were building with claude code is worthless. The best LLM meanwhile seems to change every few months. They're clearly within their rights to do this, but it's also clearly embarrassing and calls into question the future of their business.

OGEnthusiast 9mo ago
> Because the value proposition that has people pay Anthropic is that it's the best LLM-coding tool around. Why not just use a local LLM instead? That way you don't have to pay anyone.
- pdntspa 9mo ago
  Because they still suck at real-world software engineering
- _zoltan_ 9mo ago
  none can touch any of the top models. none.
casparvitch 9mo ago
Is it that it's the best coding tool or the best model? I still get the best (most accurate) results out of anthropic models (but not out of CC).
- gpm 9mo ago
  Best coding tool is what makes users use something, a good model is just a component of that. I don't think "we have the current best model for coding" is a particularly good business proposition - even assuming it's true. Staying there looks like it's going to be a matter of throwing unsustainable amounts of money at training forever to stay ahead of the competition. Meanwhile the coding tool part looks like it could actually be sticky. People get attached to UIs. People are more effective in the UIs they are experienced with. There's a plausible story that codeveloping the UI and model could result in a better model for that purpose (because it's fine tuned on the UIs interactions). And independently "Claude Code" being the best coding tool around was great for brand recognition. "Open Code with the Opus 4.5 backend - no not the Claude subscription you can't use that - the API" won't be.

dboon 9mo ago

It is embarrassing to restrict an open source tool that is (IMO) a strictly and very superior piece of software from using your model. It is not immoral, like I said, because it's clearly against the ToC; but it's not like OC is stealing anything from Anthropic by existing. It's the same subscription, same usage. Obviously, I have no idea what's going on internally. But it appears to be an issue of vanity rather than financials or theft. I don't think Anthropic is suffering harm from OC's "login" method; the correct response is to figure out why this other tool is better than yours and create better software. Shutting down the other tool, if that's what's in fact happening, is what is embarrassing.

BoiledCabbage 9mo ago
> It is embarrassing to restrict an open source tool that is (IMO) a strictly and very superior piece of software from using your model. > Shutting down the other tool, if that's what's in fact happening, is what is embarrassing. To rephrase it different as I feel my question didn't land. It's clear to me that you think it's embarrassing. And it's clear what you think is embarrassing. I'm trying to understand why you think it's embarrassing. I don't think it is at all. Your statements above are simply saying "X is embarrassing because it's embarrassing". Yes I hear that you think it's embarrassing but I don't think it is at all. Do you have a reason you can give why you think it's embarrassing? I think it's very wise and pretty standard to not subsidize people who aren't using your tool. I'm willing to consider arguments differently, but I'm not hearing one. Other than "it just is because it is".
- dboon 9mo ago
  Why do you like or dislike Diet Coke? At some point, saying what I think is embarrassing is equivalent to saying why. But, to accept your good faith olive branch, one more go: AI is a space full of grift and real potential. Anthropic's pitch is that the potential is really real. So real, in fact, that it will alter what it means to write software. It's a big claim. But a simple way to validate it would be to see if Anthropic themselves are producing more or higher quality software than the rest of the industry. If they aren't, something smells. The makers of the tool, and such a well funded and staffed company, should be the best at using it. And, well, Claude Code sucks. It's a buggy mess. Opencode, on the other hand, is not a buggy mess. It is one of the finest pieces of software I've used in a long time, and I don't mean "for a TUI". And they started writing it after CC was launched. So, to finally answer your question: Opencode is a competitor in a way that brings to question Anthropic's very innermost claim, the transformative nature of AI. I find it embarrassing to answer this question-of-sorts by limply nicking the competitor, rather than using their existence as a call for self improvement. And, Christ, OC is open. It's open source. Anthropic could, at any time, go read the code and do the engineering to make CC just as good. It is embarrassing to be beaten at your own game and then take away the ball. (If that is what is happening. Of course, this could be a misunderstanding, or a careless push to production, or any number of benign things. But those are uninteresting, so let's assume for the sake of argument that it was intentional).

anhner 9mo ago

"Leave the multibillion dollar company alone!"

wiseowise 9mo ago

It is embarrassing, because it means they’re afraid of competition. If CC was so great, at least a fraction of they sell it, they wouldn’t need to do it.

llmslave2 9mo ago

[flagged]

rockatanescu 9mo ago

The Claude plans allow you to send a number of messages to Anthropic models in a specific interval without incurring any extra costs. From Anthropic's "About Claude's Max Plan Usage" page: > The number of messages you can send per session will vary based on the length of your messages, including the size of files you attach, the length of current conversation, and the model or feature you use. Your session-based usage limit will reset every five hours. If your conversations are relatively short and use a less compute-intensive model, with the Max plan at 5x more usage, you can expect to send at least 225 messages every five hours, and with the Max plan at 20x more usage, at least 900 messages every five hours, often more depending on message length, conversation length, and Claude's current capacity. So it's not a "Claude Code" subscription, it's a "Claude" subscription. The only piece of information that might suggest that there are any restrictions to using your subscription to access the models is the part of the Pro plan description that says "Access Claude Code on the web and in your terminal" and the Max plan description that says "Everything in Pro".