5 ms·

> 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 practi

by 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.
    - nerdjon 8mo ago
      > Tie-in sales between software and services is not different from price dumping. I disagree, in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together. And in many cases do not work independent of eachother. There are countless cases of this, that what you are paying for is a thing that is made up of a piece of software and a serverside component. MMO's (and gaming in general) being a major example of this, but so are many of the apps I pay for subscriptions for on my phone. The actual technical implementation of how it works is irrelevant when it is clear what it is you are paying for. > "Both parties are okay with the terms" is far from being sufficient to make something "legal". True but the opposite is also true, just because you don't like the terms it does not make it illegal.
      - rglullis 8mo ago
        > in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together And in many cases like Claude Code and the Anthropic models, they can and do work perfectly independently. > True but the opposite is also true, just because you don't like the terms it does not make it illegal. This is not me "not liking it". Like I said somewhere else in this thread: these types of tie-in are illegal in Brazil. This practice is clearly not done to favor the consumer. You can bet that if the US was anything closer to a functional democracy and the laws were not written by lobbyists, this would be illegal in the US as well.
        nerdjon 8mo ago
        What law is actually being broken in Brazil? Are MMO’s illegal in Brazil? Is PlayStation Plus illegal in Brazil? Is Spotify, Apple Music, etc etc etc also illegal in Brazil? It would be ridiculous to argue that I could pay for a subscription to World of Warcraft and make my own third party client to play the game with. (Obviously you are free to argue it all you want but I would be very surprised if this was actually illegal). > And in many cases like Claude Code and the Anthropic models, they can and do work perfectly independently. Unless I am mistaken Claude Code does not have a local model built into it, so it requires a server side component to work? As far as the Anthropic models, yes like many other services they ALSO have a public API that is separate from the subscription that you are paying for. The critical difference here being that in the subscription it is very clear that you are paying for “Claude Code” which is a combination of an application and a server side component. It makes no claims about API usage as part of your subscription, again the technical implementation of the service you are actually paying for “Claude Code” is irrelevant. When it comes to “Claude Code” for all that we should care about, again given that “Claude Code” is what you are paying for, they could be sending the information to Gemini or or a human looks at it. Because it’s irrelevant to the end user when it comes to the technical implementation since you are not being granted access to any other parts of the system directly.
- joombaga 8mo ago
  The Telly comes with a second screen for ads that you're not allowed to shut off. https://www.telly.com/ https://www.telly.com/
  - Forgeties79 8mo ago
    That’s definitely a pitch lol
- smileysteve 8mo ago
  I think you just described American cable boxes... Except they charge us a monthly fee and an additional monthly fee for the box. Or any smart tv with free ip tv.
- pocksuppet 8mo ago
  Video service does work like that. They call it DRM.
- Reddit_MLP2 8mo ago
  Is that not most if not all smart TVs today? Basically nearly every TV made and sold right now?
- wasfgwp 8mo ago
  I can’t was Netflix on Amazon’s streaming app or the other way around? So yeah, its the same Anthropic isn’t handing out free PCs or forcing people to use them.
jltsiren 8mo ago
It's basically the difference between pro-market capitalism and pro-business capitalism. The value to the society comes from competition in the market and from the businesses' ability to choose freely how they do business. When those two goals are in conflict, which one should be prioritized? Anthropic provides an API third-party clients can use. The pro-market position is that the API must be available at every pricing tier, as the benefits from increased competition outweigh the imposed restrictions to business practices. The pro-business position is that Anthropic must be allowed to choose which tiers can use the API, as the benefits from increased freedom outweigh the reduced competition in the market.
- nerdjon 8mo ago
  Like I mentioned somewhere else I can see why some people think they are entitled to do this and I also fully understand wanting to do it from a cost standpoint. While I do personally disagree with thinking that you should be able to do this when it was never sold in that way, at the end of the day as a customer you can choose if you want to use the product in the way that they are saying or use something else if you don’t want to support that model. However the person I was responding too brought up legality which is a very different discussion.
- wasfgwp 8mo ago
  So if Claude code didn’t communicate with Anthropic’s server using a well defined public api but some obscure undocumented binary format it would be fine? Or should every app/service be required to expose documented APIs?
  - jltsiren 8mo ago
    This is not a technical question. The immediate pro-market position is that if third-party clients are allowed / possible, Anthropic should be allowed to favor its own clients with lower prices. But the position can go further if the service in question can be considered infrastructure. For example, a company that owns a mobile network may be required to let virtual operators use their infrastructure for a reasonable price. And a company owning a power grid may be required to become a neutral infrastructure provider that is not allowed to generate/sell power.

by nerdjon 8mo ago

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.
  - nerdjon 8mo ago
    > Tie-in sales between software and services is not different from price dumping. I disagree, in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together. And in many cases do not work independent of eachother. There are countless cases of this, that what you are paying for is a thing that is made up of a piece of software and a serverside component. MMO's (and gaming in general) being a major example of this, but so are many of the apps I pay for subscriptions for on my phone. The actual technical implementation of how it works is irrelevant when it is clear what it is you are paying for. > "Both parties are okay with the terms" is far from being sufficient to make something "legal". True but the opposite is also true, just because you don't like the terms it does not make it illegal.
    - rglullis 8mo ago
      > in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together And in many cases like Claude Code and the Anthropic models, they can and do work perfectly independently. > True but the opposite is also true, just because you don't like the terms it does not make it illegal. This is not me "not liking it". Like I said somewhere else in this thread: these types of tie-in are illegal in Brazil. This practice is clearly not done to favor the consumer. You can bet that if the US was anything closer to a functional democracy and the laws were not written by lobbyists, this would be illegal in the US as well.
      - nerdjon 8mo ago
        What law is actually being broken in Brazil? Are MMO’s illegal in Brazil? Is PlayStation Plus illegal in Brazil? Is Spotify, Apple Music, etc etc etc also illegal in Brazil? It would be ridiculous to argue that I could pay for a subscription to World of Warcraft and make my own third party client to play the game with. (Obviously you are free to argue it all you want but I would be very surprised if this was actually illegal). > And in many cases like Claude Code and the Anthropic models, they can and do work perfectly independently. Unless I am mistaken Claude Code does not have a local model built into it, so it requires a server side component to work? As far as the Anthropic models, yes like many other services they ALSO have a public API that is separate from the subscription that you are paying for. The critical difference here being that in the subscription it is very clear that you are paying for “Claude Code” which is a combination of an application and a server side component. It makes no claims about API usage as part of your subscription, again the technical implementation of the service you are actually paying for “Claude Code” is irrelevant. When it comes to “Claude Code” for all that we should care about, again given that “Claude Code” is what you are paying for, they could be sending the information to Gemini or or a human looks at it. Because it’s irrelevant to the end user when it comes to the technical implementation since you are not being granted access to any other parts of the system directly.
joombaga 8mo ago
The Telly comes with a second screen for ads that you're not allowed to shut off. https://www.telly.com/ https://www.telly.com/
- Forgeties79 8mo ago
  That’s definitely a pitch lol
smileysteve 8mo ago
I think you just described American cable boxes... Except they charge us a monthly fee and an additional monthly fee for the box. Or any smart tv with free ip tv.
pocksuppet 8mo ago
Video service does work like that. They call it DRM.
Reddit_MLP2 8mo ago
Is that not most if not all smart TVs today? Basically nearly every TV made and sold right now?
wasfgwp 8mo ago
I can’t was Netflix on Amazon’s streaming app or the other way around? So yeah, its the same Anthropic isn’t handing out free PCs or forcing people to use them.

jltsiren 8mo ago

It's basically the difference between pro-market capitalism and pro-business capitalism. The value to the society comes from competition in the market and from the businesses' ability to choose freely how they do business. When those two goals are in conflict, which one should be prioritized? Anthropic provides an API third-party clients can use. The pro-market position is that the API must be available at every pricing tier, as the benefits from increased competition outweigh the imposed restrictions to business practices. The pro-business position is that Anthropic must be allowed to choose which tiers can use the API, as the benefits from increased freedom outweigh the reduced competition in the market.

nerdjon 8mo ago
Like I mentioned somewhere else I can see why some people think they are entitled to do this and I also fully understand wanting to do it from a cost standpoint. While I do personally disagree with thinking that you should be able to do this when it was never sold in that way, at the end of the day as a customer you can choose if you want to use the product in the way that they are saying or use something else if you don’t want to support that model. However the person I was responding too brought up legality which is a very different discussion.
wasfgwp 8mo ago
So if Claude code didn’t communicate with Anthropic’s server using a well defined public api but some obscure undocumented binary format it would be fine? Or should every app/service be required to expose documented APIs?
- jltsiren 8mo ago
  This is not a technical question. The immediate pro-market position is that if third-party clients are allowed / possible, Anthropic should be allowed to favor its own clients with lower prices. But the position can go further if the service in question can be considered infrastructure. For example, a company that owns a mobile network may be required to let virtual operators use their infrastructure for a reasonable price. And a company owning a power grid may be required to become a neutral infrastructure provider that is not allowed to generate/sell power.