14 ms·

They put no limits on the API usage, as long as you pay. Here, they put limits on the "under-cover" use of the subscription. If they can provide a relatively c

by Loic 8mo ago

They put no limits on the API usage, as long as you pay. Here, they put limits on the "under-cover" use of the subscription. If they can provide a relatively cheap subscription against the direct API use, this is because they can control the stuff end-to-end, the application running on your system (Claude Code, Claude Desktop) and their systems. As you subscribe to these plans, this is the "contract", you can use only through their tools. If you want full freedom, use the API, with a per token pricing. For me, this is fair.

arghwhat 8mo ago
Their subscriptions aren't cheap, and it has nothing really to do with them controlling the system. It's just price differentiation - they know consumers are price sensitive, and that companies wanting to use their APIs to build products so they can slap AI on their portfolio and get access to AI-related investor money can be milked. On the consumer-facing front, they live off branding and if you're not using claude code, you might not associate the tool with Anthropic, which means losing publicity that drives API sales.
throwaway24778 8mo ago
I don't and would never pay for an LLM, but presumably they also want for force ads down your throat eventually, yea? Hard to do if you're just selling API access.
- k8sToGo 8mo ago
  Compared to the heavily subsidized subscriptions, I don't think API is sold at loss. Also why would you create a throwaway for this question? Are you trying to rage bait?
  - bilekas 8mo ago
    > Also why would you create a throwaway for this question? Are you trying to rage bait? You should never question anyone's route to privacy :)
  - throwaway24778 8mo ago
    > Are you trying to rage bait? If you have to ask, it's probably not rage bait. I'm just too lazy to come up with a username.
- bilekas 8mo ago
  But the idea of an API is more to encourage creativity and other people/companies building products and services on or around your systems. This used to be seen as a positive as it would mean you were an important cog in other peoples products and so more users, exposure, brand awareness etc.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - FeepingCreature 8mo ago
    Anthropic do of course sell API access and you can of course use any product with it.
- butlike 8mo ago
  1:29 until you're able to push to the `main` branch. Please enjoy these messages from our sponsors.
stavros 8mo ago
I don't see how it's fair. If I'm paying for usage, and I'm using it, why should Anthropic have a say on which client I use? I pay them $100 a month and now for some reason I can't use OpenCode? Fuck that.
- dragonwriter 8mo ago
  You aren't paying for usage, you are paying for the product that the subscription is offered to. If you are paying for usage, well, that's their billed by token-usage API plan, which they are quite happy for you to use with any client you want.
  - stavros 8mo ago
    Even worse, if I'm paying a subscription for the product, and I don't want to use the product, what's it to them?
    - FeepingCreature 8mo ago
      You are free to not use it. You are not free to use the API provided specifically for the product, which you are not explicitly paying for, for a different product. You can of course use OpenCode or any other project with the API, which is also offered as a separate product. People just don't want to do that because it's not subsidized, ie. more expensive. But the entire reason it's subsidized is that Anthropic can use the data to improve their product.
      - rglullis 8mo ago
        > But the entire reason it's subsidized is that Anthropic can use the data to improve their product. This is grade A, absolute crap. It's subsidized because everyone else is subsidizing it, and everyone is doing it because they are trying to lock their consumer share. The solution is quite simple. Just get the FTC to forbid tie-in sales so that we don't get the huge corporations using their infinite resources to outlive the competition. Anthropic/Amazon/Google/OpenAI/Facebook can offer any type of service they want, but if the access to the API costs $X when offered standalone, then that is the baseline price for anything that depends on the API to work.
fauigerzigerk 8mo ago
It doesn't really make sense to me because the subscriptions have limits too. But I agree they can impose whatever user hostile restrictions they want. They are not a monopoly. They compete in a very competitive market. So if they decide to raise prices in whatever shape or form then that's fine. Arbitrary restrictions do play a role for my own purchasing decisions though. Flexibility is worth something.
narrator 8mo ago
I think what most people don't realize is running an agent 24/7 fully automated is burning a huge hole in their profitability. Who even knows how big it is. It could be getting it on the 8/9 figures a day for all we know. There's this pervasive idea left over from the pre-llm days that compute is free. You want to rent your own H200x8 to run your Claude model, that's literally going to cost $24/hour. People are just not thinking like that. I have my home PC, it does this stuff I can run it 24/7 for free.
- notpushkin 8mo ago
  This is honestly the key difference here. I’m morally okay with using Claude Max Whatever with something like OpenCode because it’s literally the same thing from the usage pattern perspective. Plugging Nanoclaw into it is a whole another thing.
  - ethbr1 8mo ago
    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... At the end of the day, it's the same 'fixed price plan for variable use on a constrained resource' cellular problem: profitability becomes directly linked to actual average usage.
    - skeledrew 7mo ago
      > 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.
      - ethbr1 7mo ago
        Because open source has always been completely independent of unrelated corporate entities who employ people to work on it?
rglullis 8mo ago
> If they can provide a relatively cheap subscription against the direct API use Except they can't. Their costs are not magically lower when you use claude code vs when you use a third-party client. > For me, this is fair. This is, plain and simple, a tie-in sale of claude code. I am particularly amused by people accepting it as "fair" because in Brazil this is an illegal practice.
- pigpop 8mo ago
  While the cost may not be lower the price certainly can be if they are operating like any normal company and adding margin.
- theturtletalks 8mo ago
  I've heard they actually cache the full Claude Code system prompt on their servers and this saves them a lot of money. Maybe they cache the MCP tools you use and other things. If another harness like Opencode changes that prompt or adds significantly to it, that could increase costs for them. What I don't understand is why start this game of cat and mouse? Just look at Youtube and YT-DLP. YT-DLP, and the dozens of apps that use it, basically use Youtube's unofficial web API and it still works even after Youtube constantly patches their end. Though now, YT-DLP has to use a makeshift JS interpreter and maybe even spawn Chromium down the line.
  - duskdozer 8mo ago
    Some people drop out of the game as it gets harder. I've basically stopped looking at youtube videos unless I want it enough to download it (and wait if the current workarounds broke) with how much they've clamped down on no-account usage. Most I suspect just give in to the company's terms.
    - skeledrew 7mo ago
      I just use NewPipe all the way.
      - 7mo ago
skerit 8mo ago
It would be less of an issue if Claude-Code was actually the best coding client, and would actually somehow reduce the amount of tokens used. But it's not. I get more things done with less tokens via OpenCode. And in the end, I hit 100% usage at the end of the week anyway.
- cik 8mo ago
  The problem is incentives. The organization selling the per-token model doesn't have the incentive, at scale to have you reduce token consumption. Other technologies do, hence adding value.
agentic_lawyer 8mo ago
[dead]
tom_m 8mo ago
They tier it. So you are limited until you pay more. So you can't just right away get the access you need.
randusername 8mo ago
I'm with the parent comment. It was inevitable Netflix would end password-sharing. It was inevitable you'd have to pick between freeform usage-based billing and a constrained subscription experience. Using the chatbot subscription as an API was a weird loophole. I don't feel betrayed.

by Loic 8mo ago

arghwhat 8mo ago

Their subscriptions aren't cheap, and it has nothing really to do with them controlling the system. It's just price differentiation - they know consumers are price sensitive, and that companies wanting to use their APIs to build products so they can slap AI on their portfolio and get access to AI-related investor money can be milked. On the consumer-facing front, they live off branding and if you're not using claude code, you might not associate the tool with Anthropic, which means losing publicity that drives API sales.

throwaway24778 8mo ago

I don't and would never pay for an LLM, but presumably they also want for force ads down your throat eventually, yea? Hard to do if you're just selling API access.

k8sToGo 8mo ago
Compared to the heavily subsidized subscriptions, I don't think API is sold at loss. Also why would you create a throwaway for this question? Are you trying to rage bait?
- bilekas 8mo ago
  > Also why would you create a throwaway for this question? Are you trying to rage bait? You should never question anyone's route to privacy :)
- throwaway24778 8mo ago
  > Are you trying to rage bait? If you have to ask, it's probably not rage bait. I'm just too lazy to come up with a username.
bilekas 8mo ago
But the idea of an API is more to encourage creativity and other people/companies building products and services on or around your systems. This used to be seen as a positive as it would mean you were an important cog in other peoples products and so more users, exposure, brand awareness etc.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- FeepingCreature 8mo ago
  Anthropic do of course sell API access and you can of course use any product with it.
butlike 8mo ago
1:29 until you're able to push to the `main` branch. Please enjoy these messages from our sponsors.

stavros 8mo ago

I don't see how it's fair. If I'm paying for usage, and I'm using it, why should Anthropic have a say on which client I use? I pay them $100 a month and now for some reason I can't use OpenCode? Fuck that.

dragonwriter 8mo ago
You aren't paying for usage, you are paying for the product that the subscription is offered to. If you are paying for usage, well, that's their billed by token-usage API plan, which they are quite happy for you to use with any client you want.
- stavros 8mo ago
  Even worse, if I'm paying a subscription for the product, and I don't want to use the product, what's it to them?
  - FeepingCreature 8mo ago
    You are free to not use it. You are not free to use the API provided specifically for the product, which you are not explicitly paying for, for a different product. You can of course use OpenCode or any other project with the API, which is also offered as a separate product. People just don't want to do that because it's not subsidized, ie. more expensive. But the entire reason it's subsidized is that Anthropic can use the data to improve their product.
    - rglullis 8mo ago
      > But the entire reason it's subsidized is that Anthropic can use the data to improve their product. This is grade A, absolute crap. It's subsidized because everyone else is subsidizing it, and everyone is doing it because they are trying to lock their consumer share. The solution is quite simple. Just get the FTC to forbid tie-in sales so that we don't get the huge corporations using their infinite resources to outlive the competition. Anthropic/Amazon/Google/OpenAI/Facebook can offer any type of service they want, but if the access to the API costs $X when offered standalone, then that is the baseline price for anything that depends on the API to work.

fauigerzigerk 8mo ago

It doesn't really make sense to me because the subscriptions have limits too. But I agree they can impose whatever user hostile restrictions they want. They are not a monopoly. They compete in a very competitive market. So if they decide to raise prices in whatever shape or form then that's fine. Arbitrary restrictions do play a role for my own purchasing decisions though. Flexibility is worth something.

narrator 8mo ago

I think what most people don't realize is running an agent 24/7 fully automated is burning a huge hole in their profitability. Who even knows how big it is. It could be getting it on the 8/9 figures a day for all we know. There's this pervasive idea left over from the pre-llm days that compute is free. You want to rent your own H200x8 to run your Claude model, that's literally going to cost $24/hour. People are just not thinking like that. I have my home PC, it does this stuff I can run it 24/7 for free.

notpushkin 8mo ago
This is honestly the key difference here. I’m morally okay with using Claude Max Whatever with something like OpenCode because it’s literally the same thing from the usage pattern perspective. Plugging Nanoclaw into it is a whole another thing.
- ethbr1 8mo ago
  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... At the end of the day, it's the same 'fixed price plan for variable use on a constrained resource' cellular problem: profitability becomes directly linked to actual average usage.
  - skeledrew 7mo ago
    > 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.
    - ethbr1 7mo ago
      Because open source has always been completely independent of unrelated corporate entities who employ people to work on it?

rglullis 8mo ago

> If they can provide a relatively cheap subscription against the direct API use Except they can't. Their costs are not magically lower when you use claude code vs when you use a third-party client. > For me, this is fair. This is, plain and simple, a tie-in sale of claude code. I am particularly amused by people accepting it as "fair" because in Brazil this is an illegal practice.

pigpop 8mo ago
While the cost may not be lower the price certainly can be if they are operating like any normal company and adding margin.
theturtletalks 8mo ago
I've heard they actually cache the full Claude Code system prompt on their servers and this saves them a lot of money. Maybe they cache the MCP tools you use and other things. If another harness like Opencode changes that prompt or adds significantly to it, that could increase costs for them. What I don't understand is why start this game of cat and mouse? Just look at Youtube and YT-DLP. YT-DLP, and the dozens of apps that use it, basically use Youtube's unofficial web API and it still works even after Youtube constantly patches their end. Though now, YT-DLP has to use a makeshift JS interpreter and maybe even spawn Chromium down the line.
- duskdozer 8mo ago
  Some people drop out of the game as it gets harder. I've basically stopped looking at youtube videos unless I want it enough to download it (and wait if the current workarounds broke) with how much they've clamped down on no-account usage. Most I suspect just give in to the company's terms.
  - skeledrew 7mo ago
    I just use NewPipe all the way.
    - 7mo ago

skerit 8mo ago

It would be less of an issue if Claude-Code was actually the best coding client, and would actually somehow reduce the amount of tokens used. But it's not. I get more things done with less tokens via OpenCode. And in the end, I hit 100% usage at the end of the week anyway.

cik 8mo ago
The problem is incentives. The organization selling the per-token model doesn't have the incentive, at scale to have you reduce token consumption. Other technologies do, hence adding value.

agentic_lawyer 8mo ago

[dead]

tom_m 8mo ago

They tier it. So you are limited until you pay more. So you can't just right away get the access you need.

randusername 8mo ago

I'm with the parent comment. It was inevitable Netflix would end password-sharing. It was inevitable you'd have to pick between freeform usage-based billing and a constrained subscription experience. Using the chatbot subscription as an API was a weird loophole. I don't feel betrayed.