8 ms·

Since there's a lot of questions about what this means, let me explain. Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude

Since there's a lot of questions about what this means, let me explain. Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code. The Claude API has usage based pricing. The more you use, the more you pay. With Claude Code, you can get a monthly subscription which gives you a fixed amount of usage. Comparing equivalent token generation between the Claude API and Claude Code, Claude Code with a subscription is much cheaper. When it comes to third party products such as OpenClaw and OpenCode, Anthropic has made it clear those products should be using the Claude API and not the internal Claude Code APIs. OpenClaw and OpenCode have both been using the internal Claude Code APIs as when a user has a Claude Code subscription, the internal Claude Code API gives you tokens at a much cheaper rate than the Claude API. Presumably Anthropic makes Claude Code cheaper than the Claude API because they are willing to give users a discount for them to use Claude Code vs a competing product such as OpenCode. It looks like until recently OpenCode tried to get around Anthropic's requirements by offering "plugins" in OpenCode that would allow users to use their Claude Code subscription in OpenCode. This PR mentions as much at[0][1]: > There are plugins that allow you to use your Claude Pro/Max models with OpenCode. Anthropic explicitly prohibits this. > Previous versions of OpenCode came bundled with these plugins but that is no longer the case as of 1.3.0 This PR seems to be in response to Anthropic threatening OpenCode with legal action if they keep using the internal Claude Code APIs. [0] https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/18186/changes#diff-b5d5affc6941bf7bb19805cc8f556cd1b9ae73ffd99e520120700536b166f8c0L310 [1] https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/18186/changes#diff-b5d5affc6941bf7bb19805cc8f556cd1b9ae73ffd99e520120700536b166f8c0R321

sufehmi 7mo ago
this is actually the best explanation of this situation, why is it downvoted?
- guelo 7mo ago
  people like directing anger at a "bad guy"
achompas 7mo ago
Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation. I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms. The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime. Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscription licenses allow free usage of CC across any product surface - including competing products like OpenCode. While this is a great way to save on API costs, the assumption is incorrect. In fact, it is *so* incorrect that Anthropic has encoded their licensing terms into their Terms of Service, and a result can take legal action against any violating parties. We can have separate discussions about Anthropic’s use of the Common Crawl in pre-training, or whether foundation labs adhere to robots.txt conventions. But those don’t directly impact Anthropic’s right to bring litigation. —— Outside of that I think angry users have their own stated preferences v revealed preferences here. They claim they want Opus on their terms, and Anthropic’s actions infringe on their user rights. Angry folks: Opus is right there! You just need an API key! The reality is you want Opus in your devtools of choice at discounted rates. You could at least be honest about your consternation
- exitb 7mo ago
  > including competing products like OpenCode I think that’s a bit more nuanced. The actual „product” is not the harness, which is free anyway, but the Claude subscription. In any scenario, that’s what the customer continues to pay for. I understand why Anthropic is doing that, but I feel no need to defend it. Just like I understand why Apple limits your app choices to AppStore, but I’m not going to go out of my way to defend their decision.
  - ffsm8 7mo ago
    It's way more nuanced, because the subscription is older then Claude Code - and they only started to have a problem with third parties using it after Claude Code. (And not with the release, just some time after the release)
    - 7mo ago
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
esperent 7mo ago
> Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code. No, the two relevant products are Claude API vs Claude subscription. There's no "Claude Code subscription". There's just a subscription for all Claude services at once.
- bloody-crow 7mo ago
  The $20/mo Pro subscription only allows regular chat and Claude Code and does not allow you to export your API key without reverse engineering CC. The higher tiers allows console and direct API usage. Basically, the concept of Claude-Code having its own API tier holds.
  - lxgr 7mo ago
    Really? I thought API key usage was always billed per token, not via monthly allowances?
    - skeledrew 7mo ago
      There're keys for users to access their public API with whatever they want, and there're tokens for Claude Code to access their private API.
      - esperent 7mo ago
        Which one is OpenCode using?
        coldtea 7mo ago
        Allows both, the second Anthropic doesn't want them too.
        skeledrew 7mo ago
        The private, which they shouldn't be.
- 7mo ago
faangguyindia 7mo ago
Claude code might be subsidized but there are other risks Like if any agent can use claude models then it exposes them to distillation risk. Where data gathered from millions of such agent usage can easily be used to train a model, making their model superiority subpar Second thing is, to improve their own coding model, you need predictable input. If input to their model is all over the place (using different harnesses adds additional entropy to data) then it's hard to improve the model along 1 axis. Cache is money saver in computing. Their own client might be lot better at caches than any other agent so they do not want to lose money yet end up with disgrunted customer that claude isn't working as good And also, if a user can simply switch model in an agent. Then what moat does anthropic have? Claude code will not include other companys models and thus will allow them to make their claude code more "complex" with time so the workflows are ingrained in users psyche to the point using anything else becomes very difficult and user quickly returns to claude code
- cruffle_duffle 7mo ago
  > Cache is money saver in computing. Their own client might be lot better at caches than any other agent so they do not want to lose money yet end up with disgrunted customer that claude isn't working as good I’d bet a reasonable amount that this could be the case. They are very well incentivized to maximize cache use when it’s basically not pay per token.
- Covenant0028 7mo ago
  They are not entitled to a moat, and their customers do not owe them one. Several companies have narrow or no moats. Dell and HP are two examples when it comes to their PC business. This idea that companies should be allowed to lock down their products just so they can have moats, is how we ended up with printer ink being more expensive than crude oil or champagne.
  - solenoid0937 7mo ago
    Companies are absolutely allowed to lock down their own products. Netflix is a great example, you don't bring your own client for Netflix. The whining/entitlement in this thread is ridiculous. The API is always there for you to use as you desire. If you want to use the loss leader on the other hand, you agree to abide by certain terms. But if you don't want to do that, just use the API. It's not that hard.
mech422 7mo ago
The part I never really understood, was I thought the subscriptions were to try and boost Opus usage, not claude code usage ? I'm not sure why they care whether you use API or claude, as they limit the number of tokens you can use anyway - and once the request hits the model, I would have thought it takes the same amount of effort to process it regardless of where it comes from ?
- maxaw 7mo ago
  It’s definitely to encourage Claude code usage. Owning the interface through which your core product is delivered is a hedge against the commoditisation that everyone talks about. Eg, it’s much harder to switch from Claude code to cursor or vice versa than it is to switch between models in cursor (I sometimes don’t even notice model defaulting to composer inside cursor)
  - mech422 7mo ago
    I can believe it - maybe they feel they have enough of a lead in usage with programmers with Opus that they want to locking down the tooling side as well. edit: clarify
  - kaycey2022 7mo ago
    This is clearest reason for us to accustom ourselves to using open weight models on open source harnesses. Whatever advantages the frontier closed models offer, this will turn into ash in the mouth, when the enshittification cycle begins. And don't be mistaken, it will begin. There is no precedent which can claim otherwise. I am sure the models themselves are being RLHF tuned to work very well with the proprietary agent harnesses. This is all turning into a huge trap right in front of our eyes and the target is not just programmers but also companies whose core product involves software production.
    - maxaw 7mo ago
      Fully agree with you
- 7mo ago
coldtea 7mo ago
>> There are plugins that allow you to use your Claude Pro/Max models with OpenCode. Anthropic explicitly prohibits this. In other words, you pay $$ for a subscription, but Anthropic has the gal to tell you what client to use with it.
ouraf 7mo ago
So they've been advancing in making the AI use the computer through the same API as a person (screen/cursor/keystrokes), and the dream is a Future where AI can use a PC and handle tasks and tools like a human user. But to use their product,you have to go through the non-human-friendly API route, or else it's against the rules and Anthropic will sic their legal team onto you... Something about this reasoning seems brittle. Specially in a world of Agentic tools Ok

sufehmi 7mo ago

this is actually the best explanation of this situation, why is it downvoted?

guelo 7mo ago
people like directing anger at a "bad guy"

achompas 7mo ago

Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation. I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms. The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime. Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscription licenses allow free usage of CC across any product surface - including competing products like OpenCode. While this is a great way to save on API costs, the assumption is incorrect. In fact, it is *so* incorrect that Anthropic has encoded their licensing terms into their Terms of Service, and a result can take legal action against any violating parties. We can have separate discussions about Anthropic’s use of the Common Crawl in pre-training, or whether foundation labs adhere to robots.txt conventions. But those don’t directly impact Anthropic’s right to bring litigation. —— Outside of that I think angry users have their own stated preferences v revealed preferences here. They claim they want Opus on their terms, and Anthropic’s actions infringe on their user rights. Angry folks: Opus is right there! You just need an API key! The reality is you want Opus in your devtools of choice at discounted rates. You could at least be honest about your consternation

exitb 7mo ago
> including competing products like OpenCode I think that’s a bit more nuanced. The actual „product” is not the harness, which is free anyway, but the Claude subscription. In any scenario, that’s what the customer continues to pay for. I understand why Anthropic is doing that, but I feel no need to defend it. Just like I understand why Apple limits your app choices to AppStore, but I’m not going to go out of my way to defend their decision.
- ffsm8 7mo ago
  It's way more nuanced, because the subscription is older then Claude Code - and they only started to have a problem with third parties using it after Claude Code. (And not with the release, just some time after the release)
  - 7mo ago

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

esperent 7mo ago

> Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code. No, the two relevant products are Claude API vs Claude subscription. There's no "Claude Code subscription". There's just a subscription for all Claude services at once.

bloody-crow 7mo ago
The $20/mo Pro subscription only allows regular chat and Claude Code and does not allow you to export your API key without reverse engineering CC. The higher tiers allows console and direct API usage. Basically, the concept of Claude-Code having its own API tier holds.
- lxgr 7mo ago
  Really? I thought API key usage was always billed per token, not via monthly allowances?
  - skeledrew 7mo ago
    There're keys for users to access their public API with whatever they want, and there're tokens for Claude Code to access their private API.
    - esperent 7mo ago
      Which one is OpenCode using?
      - coldtea 7mo ago
        Allows both, the second Anthropic doesn't want them too.
      - skeledrew 7mo ago
        The private, which they shouldn't be.
7mo ago

faangguyindia 7mo ago

Claude code might be subsidized but there are other risks Like if any agent can use claude models then it exposes them to distillation risk. Where data gathered from millions of such agent usage can easily be used to train a model, making their model superiority subpar Second thing is, to improve their own coding model, you need predictable input. If input to their model is all over the place (using different harnesses adds additional entropy to data) then it's hard to improve the model along 1 axis. Cache is money saver in computing. Their own client might be lot better at caches than any other agent so they do not want to lose money yet end up with disgrunted customer that claude isn't working as good And also, if a user can simply switch model in an agent. Then what moat does anthropic have? Claude code will not include other companys models and thus will allow them to make their claude code more "complex" with time so the workflows are ingrained in users psyche to the point using anything else becomes very difficult and user quickly returns to claude code

cruffle_duffle 7mo ago
> Cache is money saver in computing. Their own client might be lot better at caches than any other agent so they do not want to lose money yet end up with disgrunted customer that claude isn't working as good I’d bet a reasonable amount that this could be the case. They are very well incentivized to maximize cache use when it’s basically not pay per token.
Covenant0028 7mo ago
They are not entitled to a moat, and their customers do not owe them one. Several companies have narrow or no moats. Dell and HP are two examples when it comes to their PC business. This idea that companies should be allowed to lock down their products just so they can have moats, is how we ended up with printer ink being more expensive than crude oil or champagne.
- solenoid0937 7mo ago
  Companies are absolutely allowed to lock down their own products. Netflix is a great example, you don't bring your own client for Netflix. The whining/entitlement in this thread is ridiculous. The API is always there for you to use as you desire. If you want to use the loss leader on the other hand, you agree to abide by certain terms. But if you don't want to do that, just use the API. It's not that hard.

mech422 7mo ago

The part I never really understood, was I thought the subscriptions were to try and boost Opus usage, not claude code usage ? I'm not sure why they care whether you use API or claude, as they limit the number of tokens you can use anyway - and once the request hits the model, I would have thought it takes the same amount of effort to process it regardless of where it comes from ?

maxaw 7mo ago
It’s definitely to encourage Claude code usage. Owning the interface through which your core product is delivered is a hedge against the commoditisation that everyone talks about. Eg, it’s much harder to switch from Claude code to cursor or vice versa than it is to switch between models in cursor (I sometimes don’t even notice model defaulting to composer inside cursor)
- mech422 7mo ago
  I can believe it - maybe they feel they have enough of a lead in usage with programmers with Opus that they want to locking down the tooling side as well. edit: clarify
- kaycey2022 7mo ago
  This is clearest reason for us to accustom ourselves to using open weight models on open source harnesses. Whatever advantages the frontier closed models offer, this will turn into ash in the mouth, when the enshittification cycle begins. And don't be mistaken, it will begin. There is no precedent which can claim otherwise. I am sure the models themselves are being RLHF tuned to work very well with the proprietary agent harnesses. This is all turning into a huge trap right in front of our eyes and the target is not just programmers but also companies whose core product involves software production.
  - maxaw 7mo ago
    Fully agree with you
7mo ago

coldtea 7mo ago

>> There are plugins that allow you to use your Claude Pro/Max models with OpenCode. Anthropic explicitly prohibits this. In other words, you pay $$ for a subscription, but Anthropic has the gal to tell you what client to use with it.

ouraf 7mo ago

So they've been advancing in making the AI use the computer through the same API as a person (screen/cursor/keystrokes), and the dream is a Future where AI can use a PC and handle tasks and tools like a human user. But to use their product,you have to go through the non-human-friendly API route, or else it's against the rules and Anthropic will sic their legal team onto you... Something about this reasoning seems brittle. Specially in a world of Agentic tools Ok