6 ms·

> protect their investment Viewed another way, the preferential pricing they're giving to Claude Code (and only Claude Code) is anticompetitive behavior that m

> protect their investment Viewed another way, the preferential pricing they're giving to Claude Code (and only Claude Code) is anticompetitive behavior that may be illegal.

nebezb 9mo ago
Are you suggesting Anthropic has a “duty to deal” with anyone who is trying to build competitive products to Claude Code, beyond access to their priced API? I don’t think so. Especially not to a product that’s been breaking ToS.
- eli 9mo ago
  No, but I think they should. Or anti-trust was enforced through some other means. Or at all really. Citing the ToS is circular logic. They set the terms and can change them whenever they want!
  - nebezb 9mo ago
    A regulatory duty to deal is the opposite of setting your own terms. Yes, citing a ToS is acceptable in this scenario. We can throw ToS out if we all believed in duty to deal.
- no-name-here 9mo ago
  Do other companies have a similar "duty to deal" - for example, if Microsoft or Apple ToS forbid use of open source software with their software? Or if VS Code ToS forbid people from using VS Code to work on a competitor?
Aurornis 9mo ago
This is a misunderstanding of the regulations. They’re not obligated to give other companies access to their services at a discounted rate.
- gpm 9mo ago
  They may however be obligated to not give customers access to their services at a discounted rate either - predatory pricing is at least some of the time and in some jurisdictions illegal.
  - lumost 9mo ago
    Claude code is so successful that they could silence the api to protect the moat. I’m surprised they didn’t go with the option of offering opus 4.6 to Claude code only.
    - Wowfunhappy 9mo ago
      The API is really expensive compared to a Max subscription! So they're probably making a lot of money (or at least losing much less) via the API. I don't think it's going anywhere. Worst case scenario they could raise the price even more.
    - auguzanellato 9mo ago
      That’s what OpenAI is doing with GPT-5.2-Codex
  - Aurornis 9mo ago
    Predatory pricing? They have a public API that anyone can use for a public rate. There is no predatory pricing here. The Claude Code endpoint is a private API. They’re free to control usage of their private API.
    - gpm 9mo ago
      Predatory pricing is selling something below cost to acquire/maintain market dominance. The Claude subscription used for Claude Code is to all appearances being sold substantially below the cost to run it, and it certainly seems that this is being done to maintain Claude Code's market dominance and force out competitors who cannot afford to subsidize LLM inference in the same way such as OpenCode. It's not a matter of there being a public API, I don't believe they are obligated to offer one at all, it's a matter of the Claude Subscription being priced fairly so that OpenCode (on top of, say, gemini) can be competitive.

> protect their investment Viewed another way, the preferential pricing they're giving to Claude Code (and only Claude Code) is anticompetitive behavior that may be illegal.

nebezb 9mo ago

Are you suggesting Anthropic has a “duty to deal” with anyone who is trying to build competitive products to Claude Code, beyond access to their priced API? I don’t think so. Especially not to a product that’s been breaking ToS.

eli 9mo ago
No, but I think they should. Or anti-trust was enforced through some other means. Or at all really. Citing the ToS is circular logic. They set the terms and can change them whenever they want!
- nebezb 9mo ago
  A regulatory duty to deal is the opposite of setting your own terms. Yes, citing a ToS is acceptable in this scenario. We can throw ToS out if we all believed in duty to deal.
no-name-here 9mo ago
Do other companies have a similar "duty to deal" - for example, if Microsoft or Apple ToS forbid use of open source software with their software? Or if VS Code ToS forbid people from using VS Code to work on a competitor?

Aurornis 9mo ago

This is a misunderstanding of the regulations. They’re not obligated to give other companies access to their services at a discounted rate.

gpm 9mo ago
They may however be obligated to not give customers access to their services at a discounted rate either - predatory pricing is at least some of the time and in some jurisdictions illegal.
- lumost 9mo ago
  Claude code is so successful that they could silence the api to protect the moat. I’m surprised they didn’t go with the option of offering opus 4.6 to Claude code only.
  - Wowfunhappy 9mo ago
    The API is really expensive compared to a Max subscription! So they're probably making a lot of money (or at least losing much less) via the API. I don't think it's going anywhere. Worst case scenario they could raise the price even more.
  - auguzanellato 9mo ago
    That’s what OpenAI is doing with GPT-5.2-Codex
- Aurornis 9mo ago
  Predatory pricing? They have a public API that anyone can use for a public rate. There is no predatory pricing here. The Claude Code endpoint is a private API. They’re free to control usage of their private API.
  - gpm 9mo ago
    Predatory pricing is selling something below cost to acquire/maintain market dominance. The Claude subscription used for Claude Code is to all appearances being sold substantially below the cost to run it, and it certainly seems that this is being done to maintain Claude Code's market dominance and force out competitors who cannot afford to subsidize LLM inference in the same way such as OpenCode. It's not a matter of there being a public API, I don't believe they are obligated to offer one at all, it's a matter of the Claude Subscription being priced fairly so that OpenCode (on top of, say, gemini) can be competitive.