4 ms·

> 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 subscript

> 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.
skeledrew 7mo ago
Their ToS says differently. You can't argue with what's explicitly in their legal agreement.
- esperent 7mo ago
  Sure you can. TOS docs are full of non legally enforceable wishful thinking bullshit, especially when they're written by an American company providing services to me in Europe. Most of the time they just expect (correctly) that they'll never get challenged in court over it.
  - skeledrew 7mo ago
    Even if it isn't enforceable from a usage perspective, it is from a provider perspective, meaning they can also simply deny their service to anyone they discover breaking said terms. And there's nothing anyone can do about it.
- bean469 7mo ago
  > You can't argue with what's explicitly in their legal agreement. Sure you can, that's what courts are for
  - skeledrew 7mo ago
    A case like this would immediately get thrown out because it makes no sense to argue it. Can be considered frivolous.
- coldtea 7mo ago
  >You can't argue with what's explicitly in their legal agreement Sure I can. I can even contest it in court (if I had the money). Some "legal agreements", TOS, etc. are even unenforceable and blatant abuses of the law. And what's more, I can even consider ALL such legal agreements bogus and demand that the law changes to now allow them.
  - skeledrew 7mo ago

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.

skeledrew 7mo ago

Their ToS says differently. You can't argue with what's explicitly in their legal agreement.

esperent 7mo ago
Sure you can. TOS docs are full of non legally enforceable wishful thinking bullshit, especially when they're written by an American company providing services to me in Europe. Most of the time they just expect (correctly) that they'll never get challenged in court over it.
- skeledrew 7mo ago
  Even if it isn't enforceable from a usage perspective, it is from a provider perspective, meaning they can also simply deny their service to anyone they discover breaking said terms. And there's nothing anyone can do about it.
bean469 7mo ago
> You can't argue with what's explicitly in their legal agreement. Sure you can, that's what courts are for
- skeledrew 7mo ago
  A case like this would immediately get thrown out because it makes no sense to argue it. Can be considered frivolous.
coldtea 7mo ago
>You can't argue with what's explicitly in their legal agreement Sure I can. I can even contest it in court (if I had the money). Some "legal agreements", TOS, etc. are even unenforceable and blatant abuses of the law. And what's more, I can even consider ALL such legal agreements bogus and demand that the law changes to now allow them.
- skeledrew 7mo ago