6 ms·

> 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 cod

> 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 8mo ago
    I just use NewPipe all the way.
    - duskdozer 8mo ago
      It hadn't worked for me for a long time, though I did notice an update recently, so maybe it's good again. I like it better than Grayjay
- refsys 8mo ago
  [dead]
regularfry 8mo ago
> Except they can't. Their costs are not magically lower when you use claude code vs when you use a third-party client. I don't have a dog in this fight but is this actually true? If you're using Claude Code they can know that whatever client-side model selection they put into it is active. So if they can get away with routing 80% of the requests to Haiku and only route to Opus for the requests that really need it, that does give them a cost model where they can rely on lower costs than if a third-party client just routes to Opus for everything. Even if they aren't doing that sort of thing now, it would be understandable if they wanted to.
- joseda-hg 8mo ago
  It (CC) does have a /models command, you can still decide to route everything to Opus if you just want to burn tokens I guess it's not default so most wouldn't, but still, people willing to go to a third party client are more likely that kind of power user anyway They still have the total consumption under their control (*bar prompt caching and other specific optimizations) where in the past they even had different quotas per model, it shouldn't cost them more money, just be a worse/different service I guess
  - ac29 8mo ago
    > It (CC) does have a /models command, you can still decide to route everything to Opus if you just want to burn tokens I guess it's not default so most wouldn't Opus is claude code's default model as of sometime recently (around Opus 4.6?)
  - skeledrew 8mo ago
    > it shouldn't cost them more money As things are currently, better models mean bigger models that take more storage+RAM+CPU, or just spend more time processing a request. All this translates to higher costs, and may be mitigated by particular configs triggered by knowledge that a given client, providing particular guarantees, is on the other side.
    - joseda-hg 8mo ago
cma 8mo ago
> Their costs are not magically lower when you use claude code vs when you use a third-party client. If subsidizing that offering is a good hook to get higher paying API users on board, then some of that cost is a customer aquisition cost, whereas the cost to them of providing the API doesn't have the same proportion that they can justify as a customer acquisition cost.
- rglullis 8mo ago
  I absolutely have zero concerns about their cost to acquire new customers. As a (former) customer, all I am concerned is the freedom to consume the service I am paying for however I see fit.
  - brookst 8mo ago
    Is there any service in the world that gives you complete freedom on how you consume it? I can’t think of one. Netflix: limits number of devices and stream quality and offline use. AWS: does not allow any number of applications (spamming, crypto mining, adult content) Airlines: do not allow smoking, boom boxes Is there any service that gives complete freedom?
    - rglullis 8mo ago
      I am not asking for "complete" freedom, am I? Can you please argue in good faith and not resort to cheap rhetoric tricks?
      - votepaunchy 8mo ago
        “the freedom to consume the service I am paying for however I see fit” sure sounds like complete freedom.
nerdjon 8mo ago
> 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 I am very curious what is particularly illegal about this. On the sales page nowhere do they actually talk about the API https://claude.com/pricing https://claude.com/pricing Now we all know obviously the API is being used because that is how things work, but you are not actually paying a subscription for the API. You are paying for access to Claude Code. Is it also illegal that if you pay for Playstation Plus that you can't play those games on an Xbox? Is it illegal that you can't use third party netflix apps? I really don't want to defend and AI company here but this is perfectly normal. In no other situation would we expect access to the API, the only reason this is considered different is because they also have a different service that gives access to the API. But that is irrelevant.
- CuriouslyC 8mo ago
  Imagine if video service came with a free TV that watched you, and was really opinionated about what you watch, and you could only watch your videos on the creeper TV.
  - nerdjon 8mo ago
    Then I would not use it because it does not work the way I want it to work... But if that is the service they are making and they are clear about what it is when you sign up... That does not make it illegal. I can see why people think they should be entitled to do this, but it does not align with how they are selling the service or how many other companies sell services. In most situations you don't get unlimited access to the individual components of how a service works (the API), you are expected to use the service (in this case Claude Code) directly.
    - rglullis 8mo ago
      > That does not make it illegal. "Both parties are okay with the terms" is far from being sufficient to make something "legal". Tie-in sales between software and services is not different from price dumping. If any of the Big Tech corporations were from any country that is not the US, the FTC would be doing anything in their power to stop them.
canibal 8mo ago
But they could charge the third-party client for access to the API.
rogerthis 8mo ago
Unless it's illegal in more places, I think they won't care. In my experience, the percentage of free riders in Brazil is higher (due to circumstances, better said).

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 8mo ago
  I just use NewPipe all the way.
  - duskdozer 8mo ago
    It hadn't worked for me for a long time, though I did notice an update recently, so maybe it's good again. I like it better than Grayjay
refsys 8mo ago
[dead]

regularfry 8mo ago

> Except they can't. Their costs are not magically lower when you use claude code vs when you use a third-party client. I don't have a dog in this fight but is this actually true? If you're using Claude Code they can know that whatever client-side model selection they put into it is active. So if they can get away with routing 80% of the requests to Haiku and only route to Opus for the requests that really need it, that does give them a cost model where they can rely on lower costs than if a third-party client just routes to Opus for everything. Even if they aren't doing that sort of thing now, it would be understandable if they wanted to.

joseda-hg 8mo ago
It (CC) does have a /models command, you can still decide to route everything to Opus if you just want to burn tokens I guess it's not default so most wouldn't, but still, people willing to go to a third party client are more likely that kind of power user anyway They still have the total consumption under their control (*bar prompt caching and other specific optimizations) where in the past they even had different quotas per model, it shouldn't cost them more money, just be a worse/different service I guess
- ac29 8mo ago
  > It (CC) does have a /models command, you can still decide to route everything to Opus if you just want to burn tokens I guess it's not default so most wouldn't Opus is claude code's default model as of sometime recently (around Opus 4.6?)
- skeledrew 8mo ago
  > it shouldn't cost them more money As things are currently, better models mean bigger models that take more storage+RAM+CPU, or just spend more time processing a request. All this translates to higher costs, and may be mitigated by particular configs triggered by knowledge that a given client, providing particular guarantees, is on the other side.
  - joseda-hg 8mo ago

cma 8mo ago

> Their costs are not magically lower when you use claude code vs when you use a third-party client. If subsidizing that offering is a good hook to get higher paying API users on board, then some of that cost is a customer aquisition cost, whereas the cost to them of providing the API doesn't have the same proportion that they can justify as a customer acquisition cost.

rglullis 8mo ago
I absolutely have zero concerns about their cost to acquire new customers. As a (former) customer, all I am concerned is the freedom to consume the service I am paying for however I see fit.
- brookst 8mo ago
  Is there any service in the world that gives you complete freedom on how you consume it? I can’t think of one. Netflix: limits number of devices and stream quality and offline use. AWS: does not allow any number of applications (spamming, crypto mining, adult content) Airlines: do not allow smoking, boom boxes Is there any service that gives complete freedom?
  - rglullis 8mo ago
    I am not asking for "complete" freedom, am I? Can you please argue in good faith and not resort to cheap rhetoric tricks?
    - votepaunchy 8mo ago
      “the freedom to consume the service I am paying for however I see fit” sure sounds like complete freedom.

nerdjon 8mo ago

> 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 I am very curious what is particularly illegal about this. On the sales page nowhere do they actually talk about the API https://claude.com/pricing https://claude.com/pricing Now we all know obviously the API is being used because that is how things work, but you are not actually paying a subscription for the API. You are paying for access to Claude Code. Is it also illegal that if you pay for Playstation Plus that you can't play those games on an Xbox? Is it illegal that you can't use third party netflix apps? I really don't want to defend and AI company here but this is perfectly normal. In no other situation would we expect access to the API, the only reason this is considered different is because they also have a different service that gives access to the API. But that is irrelevant.

CuriouslyC 8mo ago
Imagine if video service came with a free TV that watched you, and was really opinionated about what you watch, and you could only watch your videos on the creeper TV.
- nerdjon 8mo ago
  Then I would not use it because it does not work the way I want it to work... But if that is the service they are making and they are clear about what it is when you sign up... That does not make it illegal. I can see why people think they should be entitled to do this, but it does not align with how they are selling the service or how many other companies sell services. In most situations you don't get unlimited access to the individual components of how a service works (the API), you are expected to use the service (in this case Claude Code) directly.
  - rglullis 8mo ago
    > That does not make it illegal. "Both parties are okay with the terms" is far from being sufficient to make something "legal". Tie-in sales between software and services is not different from price dumping. If any of the Big Tech corporations were from any country that is not the US, the FTC would be doing anything in their power to stop them.

canibal 8mo ago

But they could charge the third-party client for access to the API.

rogerthis 8mo ago

Unless it's illegal in more places, I think they won't care. In my experience, the percentage of free riders in Brazil is higher (due to circumstances, better said).