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

> 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.

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)

That makes perfect sense because that's when it became orders of magnitude more expensive to offer the service.

To me, that argument would only make sense if the subscription wasn't metered... But it is.

Sheriff spits to the ground. One harness. One horse. How we do it' fer now on.

>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.

Some of us don't care for Anthropic's "right to bring litigation" anymore than we care about some scumbag patent troll company doing things "within their legal rights".

We care for the morality of its conduct, the openess of its products, and the environment it creates.

I think this is disingenuous, people want to be able to use a tool that they pay for to do useful work on their own terms because they payed for it and don’t see the differential pricing model offered by Anthropic as legitimate.

Why would it not be legitimate?

They can't take any legal action outside of the US. In most other jurisdiction such Bullshit in the ToS would be void anyway

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

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.

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.

> champagne

Makes sense, sort of...

> crude oil

I really hope that's cheaper than ink or we're gonna have a problem...

> 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.

> 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.

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.

Really? I thought API key usage was always billed per token, not via monthly allowances?

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.

Which one is OpenCode using?

Allows both, the second Anthropic doesn't want them too.

The private, which they shouldn't be.

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

> You can't argue with what's explicitly in their legal agreement.

Sure you can, that's what courts are for

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.

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.

>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.

> Some "legal agreements", TOS, etc. are even unenforceable and blatant abuses of the law.

Good luck trying to classify this one as such. There's no valid argument given the fact that users are attempting to gain access to an offer in a way that isn't applicable to them. It's tantamount to deception and stealing, going somewhere you were not invited as though you were and taking something that wasn't given to you.

>> 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.

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 ?

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)

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.

Fully agree with you

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

Good recent video on this specific subject, it was enlightening to me: https://youtu.be/3FbqaD1MCUA

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

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

people like directing anger at a "bad guy"