4 ms·
The anticompetitive part is setting a much lower price for typical usage of Claude Code vs. typical usage of another CLI dev tool.
by ericd 8mo ago
The anticompetitive part is setting a much lower price for typical usage of Claude Code vs. typical usage of another CLI dev tool.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- gehsty 8mo agoAnticompetitive with themselves? It’s not like Claude / Anthropic have any kind of monopoly, and services companies are allowed to charge different rates for different kind of access to said service?
- tomjakubowski 8mo agoWithout taking a position, this debate is reminiscent of that around net neutrality.
- rhgraysonii 8mo agoThe anticompetitive move would be not running their software if ‘which codex’ evaluated to showing a binary and then not allow you to use it due to its presence. Companies are allowed to set pricing and not let you borrow the jet to fly to a not approved destination. This distortion is just wrong as a premise. They are being competitive by making a superior tool and their business model is “no one else sells Claude” and they are pretty right to do this IMO.
- ericd 8mo agoAnticompetitive behavior has been normalized in our industry, doesn't make it not anticompetitive. It's a restriction that's meant to make it harder to compete with other parts of their offering. The non-anticompetitive approach would be to offer their subscription plans with a certain number of tokens every month, and then make Claude Code the most efficient with the tokens, to let it compete on its own merits.