FRESH

Hacker News

Home

Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

619 points by sergiotapia

by dfabulich

44 subcomments

For folks not following the drama: Anthropic's $200/month subscription for Claude Code is much cheaper than Anthropic's pay-as-you-go API. In a month of Claude Code, it's easy to use so many LLM tokens that it would have cost you more than $1,000 if you'd paid via the API.
Why is Anthropic offering such favorable pricing to subscribers? I dunno. But they really want you to use the Claude Code™ CLI with that subscription, not the open-source OpenCode CLI. They want OpenCode users to pay API prices, which could be 5x or more.
So, of course, OpenCode has implemented a workaround, so that folks paying "only" $200/month can use their preferred OpenCode CLI at Anthropic's all-you-can-eat token buffet.
https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/7410#issuecomme...
Everything about this is ridiculous, and it's all Anthropic's fault. Anthropic shouldn't have an all-you-can-eat plan for $200 when their pay-as-you-go plan would cost more than $1,000+ for comparable usage. Their subscription plans should just sell you API credits at, like, 20% off.
More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their Claude Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open source it now.)

by dboon

15 subcomments

This is an unusual L for Anthropic. The unfortunate truth is that the engineering in opencode is so far ahead of Claude Code. Obviously, CC is a great tool, but that's more about the magic of the model than the engineering of the CLI.
The opencode team[^1][^2] built an entire custom TUI backend that supports a good subset of HTML/CSS and the TypeScript ecosystem (i.e. not tied to Opencode, a generic TUI renderer). Then, they built the product as a client/server, so you can use the agent part of it for whatever you want, separate from the TUI. And THEN, since they implemented the TUI as a generic client, they could also build a web view and desktop view over the same server.
It also doesn't flicker at 30 FPS whenever it spawns a subagent.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many QoL features in opencode that put CC to shame. Again, CC is a magical tool, but the actual nuts and bolts engineering of it is pretty damning for "LLMs will write all of our code soon". I'm sorry, but I'm a decent-systems-programmer-but-terminal-moron and I cranked out a raymarched 3D renderer in the terminal for a Claude Wrapped[^] in a weekend that...doesn't flicker. I don't mean that in a look-at-me way. I mean that in a "a mid-tier systems programmer isn't making these mistakes" kind of way.
Anyway, this is embarrassing for Anthropic. I get that opencode shouldn't have been authenticating this way. I'm not saying what they are doing is a rug pull, or immoral. But there's a reason people use this tool instead of your first party one. Maybe let those world class systems designers who created the runtime that powers opencode get their hands on your TUI before nicking something that is an objectively better product.
[^1] https://github.com/anomalyco/opentui
[^2] From my loose following of the development, not a monolith, and the person mostly responsible for the TUI framework is https://x.com/kmdrfx
[^3] https://spader.zone/wrapped/

by lemming

2 subcomments

This will piss a lot of people off, and seems like a strange move. I get that this was always a hack and against the ToS. But I've been paying Anthropic money every month to do exactly what I would have done with Claude Code, but in another harness that I like better. All they've achieved here is that I am no longer giving them money. Their per-token pricing is really expensive compared to OpenAI, and I like the results from the OpenAI models better too, they're just very slow.
Here's a good benchmark from the brokk team showing the performance per dollar, GPT-5.1 is around half the price of Opus 4.5 for the same performance, it just takes twice as long.
https://brokk.ai/power-ranking?dataset=openround&models=flas...
So as of today, my money is going to OpenAI instead of Anthropic. They probably don't care though, I suspect that not many users are sufficiently keen on alternative harnesses to make a difference to their finances. But by the same token (ha ha), why enforce this? I don't understand why it's so important to them that I'm using Claude Code instead of something else.

by oldhead

2 subcomments

This headline is misleading. EDIT: Or rather was, at it has now been edited to be accurate.
You can still bring your own Anthropic API key and use Claude in OpenCode.
What you can no longer do is reverse engineer undocumented Anthropic APIs and spoof being a Claude Code client to use an OAuth token from a subscription-based Anthropic account.
This really sucks for people who want a thriving competitive market of open source harnesses since BYOK API tokens mean paying a substantial premium to use anything but Anthropic's official clients.
But it's hard to say it's surprising or a scandal, or anything terribly different from what tons of other companies have done in the past. I'd personally advise people to expect everything about using frontier coding models becoming much more pay-to-play.

by weird-eye-issue

8 subcomments

The API is not banned only using the Claude Code subscription is
I actually tried this several months back to do a regular API request using the CC subscription token and it gave the same error message
So this software must have been pretending to be Claude Code in order to get around that
A Claude Code subscription should not work with other software, I think this is totally fair

by misternugget

4 subcomments

Engineer working on Amp here.
I'm very surprised that it took them this long to crack down on it. It's been against the terms of service from the start. When I asked them back in March last year whether individuals can use the higher rate limits that come with the Claude Code subscription in other applications, that was also a no.
Question is: what changed? New founding round coming up, end of fiscal year, planning for IPO? Do they have to cut losses?
Because the other surprise here is that apparently most people don't know the true cost of tokens and how much money Anthropic is losing with power users of Claude Code.

by brainless

3 subcomments

I know this will sound strange, but SOTA model companies will eventually allow subscription based usage through third-party tools. For any usage whatsoever.
Models are pretty much democratized. I use Claude Code and opencode and I get more work done these days with GLM or Grok Code (using opencode). Z.ai (GLM) subscription is so worth it.
Also, mixing models, small and large ones, is the way to go. Different models from different providers. This is not like cloud infra where you need to plan the infra use. Models are pretty much text in, text out (let's say for text only models). The minor differences in API are easy to work with.

by bazhand

1 subcomments

FWIW this isn’t new, using a Claude/Max subscription auth token as a general-purpose “API key” has been known (and blocked) for ages. OpenCode basically had to impersonate the official Claude Code client to make that work, and it always felt like a loophole that would get patched eventually.
This is exactly why (when OpenCode and Charm/Crush started diverging) Charm chose not to support “use your Claude subscription” auth and went in a different direction (BYOK / multi-provider / etc). They didn’t want to build a product on top of a fragile, unofficial auth path.
And I think there’s a privacy/policy reason tightening this now too: the recent Claude Code update (2.1-ish) pops a “Help improve Claude” prompt in the terminal. If you turn that ON, retention jumps from 30 days to up to 5 years for new/resumed chats/coding sessions (and data can be used for model improvement). If you keep it OFF, you stay on the default 30-day retention. You can also delete data anytime in settings. That consent + retention toggle is hard to enforce cleanly if you’re not in an official client flow, so it makes sense they’re drawing a harder line.

by deveworld

3 subcomments

The fix has been merged in https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-auth/pull/11, and PR https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/7432 is open to bump the version.
Until it's released, here's a workaround:
1. git clone https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-auth.git
2. Add to ~/.config/opencode/opencode.json: "plugin": ["file:///path/to/opencode-anthropic-auth/index.mjs"]
3. Run: OPENCODE_DISABLE_DEFAULT_PLUGINS=true opencode

by mcast

0 subcomment

I’m not surprised they closed the loophole, it always felt a little hacky using an Anthropic monthly sub as an API with a spoofed prompt (“You are Claude Code, Anthropic's official CLI for Claude”) with OpenCode.
Google will probably close off their Antigravity models to 3P tools as well.

by JimmaDaRustla

2 subcomments

Lots of arguing about semantics of what the subscription is actually intended for.
Claude Code, as a coding assistant, isn't even mediocre, it's kind of crap. The reason it's at all good is because of the model underneath - there's tons of free and open agent tools that are far better than Claude Code. Regardless of what they say you're paying the subscription for, the truth is the only thing of value to developers is the underlying AI and API.
I can only think of few reasons why they'd do this: 1. Their Claude Code tool is not simply an agent assistant - perhaps it's feeding data for model training purposes, or something of the sorts where they gain value from it. 2. They don't want developers to use competitor models in any capacity. 3. They're offloading processing or doing local context work to drive down the API usage locally, making the usage minimal. This is very unlikely.
I currently use Opus 4.5 for architecting, which then feeds into Gemini 3 Flash with medium reasoning for coding. It's only a matter of time before Google competes with Opus 4.5, and when they do, I won't have any loyalty to Anthropic.

by viraptor

1 subcomments

And it already has a workaround. https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/7410#issuecomme...
I really don't understand why they thought this is a good idea. I mean I know why they wish to do this, but it's obviously not going to last.

by Sewer56

2 subcomments

Here's how to get a refund on the website (all automated):
1. Profile Icon -> Get Help
2. Send us a Message
3. Click 'Refund'
Big corpos only talk money, so it's the best you could do in this situation.
If you can't refund, and need to wait till sub runs out after cancelling, go to the OpenCode repo and rename your tools so they start with capital letters. That'll work around it. They just match on lowercase tool names of standard tools.

by planet_1649c

1 subcomments

Cancelled my claude subscription over it. Opencode is miles ahead of any coding tools. Will stick to using it rather than claude. Other models / other ways to access claude exists.

by ewoodrich

0 subcomment

Ugh, well at least this was the nudge I needed to cancel my Claude Pro subscription... I've already had a bad taste in my mouth watching the rate limits on the plan get worse and worse since I first subscribed and I have a few other subscriptions to fall back on while I've been evaluating different options. I literally never use the regular Claude Chat web UI either, that's pretty much 100% Gemini since I get it via my Google One plan.
OpenCode makes me feel a lot better knowing that my workflow isn't completely dependent on single vendor lock-in, and I generally prefer the UX to Claude Code anyway.

by Draiken

1 subcomments

Funnily enough, I didn't know about opencode and will now test it out and likely use it instead.
Improve your client so people prefer it? Nah.
Try to force people to use your client by subsidizing it? Now that's what I'm talking about.
As others said, why not just run a bunch of agents on Claude Code to surpass Opencode? I'm sure that's easy with their unlimited tokens!

by wahnfrieden

1 subcomments

Meanwhile, OpenAI co-signs https://github.com/steipete/oracle which lets you use your ChatGPT subscription to gain programmatic/agentic access to 5.2 Pro via automating browser access to the web frontend. Karpathy and other leaders have praised this feature on X.
If that is indeed so welcome, imagine what else you could script via their website to get around Codex rate limits or other such things.
After all what coud be so different about this than what browsers like Atlas do already

by minimaxir

4 subcomments

This appears to be a part of a crackdown on third-party clients using Claude Code's credentials/subscriptions but not through Claude Code.
Not surprising as this type of credential reuse is always a gray area, but weird Anthropic deployed it on a Thursday night without any warning as the inevitable shitstorm would be very predictable.

by tbliu

0 subcomment

btw, Amp just announced Opus 4.5 is now supported in their free tier: https://ampcode.com/news/amp-free-frontier. I've been using it a ton and it's a super nice cli. It has ads, but they are fairly non-intrusive

by jiangplus

1 subcomments

This reminds me of when Anthropic cut first-party access to Claude models in Windsurf as they were about to be acquired by Google.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTCoding/comments/1l2y2kh/anth...

by sergiotapia

0 subcomment

Switched to the z.ai coding plan, and used the GLM 4.7 model for a few complex changes since posting this, and it works really well.
I don't think I will renew Anthropic, the open models have reached an inflection point.

by articunoJones

0 subcomment

fork OC and use anthropics agent SDK that allows you to build on top of your subscription
The Agent SDK can piggyback on your existing Claude Code authentication
https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/quickstart

by outlier99

0 subcomment

they didn't even ban non claude code clients they just banned certain tool names that opencode uses...
https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/7410#issuecomme...

by ChaseRensberger

0 subcomment

Wow, i sat down to do a little bit of late night coding and ended up running into this nightmare. Just canceled my anthropic subscription and started paying for opencode zen. Unfortunately opencode is enough of a better product i will indeed pay 10 times the price to use it.

by kalamazooo

1 subcomments

OpenCode brought this on themselves and their users. Plugging Claude Max subscriptions into other agents has been against the terms of service basically since the start and I imagine Anthropic must have issued plenty of warnings here that were ignored. They wouldn’t do this unless they really had to. If folks are mad about being rugged, blame OpenCode for misleading their users when they’ve long known this day was coming. Brilliant cynical strategy though to exploit soft enforcement for growth and lay the blame at the company that provided them cheap tokens.

by dboon

0 subcomment

For anyone coming looking for a solution; I peeked around the OC repository, and a few PRs got merged in. Add this to $HOME/.config/opencode/opencode.json: plugin = ["opencode-anthropic-auth"]
That is, if that's not pulled in to latest OC by the time I post this. Not sure what the release cycle is for builtin plugins like that, but by force specifying it it definitely pulls master which has a fix.
https://opencode.ai/docs/plugins/

by ozlikethewizard

1 subcomments

I know this is somewhat unreasonable but watching "devs" unable to work because "faceless corp 1007" cut their access definitely has a level of schadenfreude to it.

by pat_erichsen

1 subcomments

This situation feels like a +1 for Agent Client Protocol (ACP) [1].
In ACP, you auth directly to the underlying agent (eg Claude Code SDK) rather than a third-party tool (eg OpenCode) that then calls an inference endpoint on your behalf. If you're logged into Claude Code, you're already logged into Claude Code through any ACP client.
[1] https://agentclientprotocol.com/overview/agents

by B480FA8D

0 subcomment

The TOS, which is a contract of adhesion for consumer-facing products, does not really matter that much in my opinion since "we have to lock you in to our specific interface on our public offering" is not a cognizable interest. SCOTUS is also very clear in requiring actual damages (in incremental harms) to establish a CFAA violation. At any rate, opencode is essentially providing equitable estoppel as a service by being open and popular - cannot go after me without first dealing with the "unionized" project (last words)! I don't think they get to conflate the issues of alternative interface dispute and their intentional pricing strategy losing money on heavy users.
Of course, they are banning for financial economic interests, not nominal alleged contractual violations, so Anthropic is not sympathetic.
// NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Obviously, I think it can make sense to Anthropic since opencode users likely disproportionately cost them money with little lock-in - you can switch the moment a comparable model is available elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean there are any legal or ethical issues barring us from continuously using the built-in opencode OAuth though.

by paolomainardi

2 subcomments

Not strictly related, but since Copilot could be the next to violate the TOS, I've asked for an official response here: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/183809. If someone can help raise this question, it's more than welcome.

by bionhoward

1 subcomments

Why act like it’s a mystery when the Claude Code repo clearly explains:
> When you use Claude Code, we collect feedback, which includes usage data (such as code acceptance or rejections), associated conversation data, and user feedback submitted via the /bug command.
They subsidize Claude Code because it gives them your codebase and chat history

by Szpadel

1 subcomments

inference costs nothing in comparison to training (you have so many requests in parallel at their scale), for inference they should be profitable even when you drain whole weekly quota every week
but of course they have to pay for training too.
this looks like short sighted money grab (do they need it?), that trade short term profit for trust and customer base (again) as people will cancel their unusable subscriptions.
changing model family when you have instructions tuned for for one of them is tricky and takes long time so people will stick to one of them for some time, but with API pricing you quickly start looking for alternatives and openai gpt-5 family is also fine for coding when you spend some time tuning it.
another pain is switching your agent software, moving from CC to codex is more painful than just picking different model in things like OC, this is plausible argument why they are doing this.

by msten

1 subcomments

This makes total sense to me. Limiting the usage to their tooling means they can place reasonable limits on usage by controlling how the client interacts with the LLM and making those calls as efficient as possible. The current state of things didn't really feel sustainable.

by ankushkun_

0 subcomment

Woke up and everything is on Fire, I thought opencode had some bug coz it updated itself this morning, but realised its claude who blocked third party clients :( L for Anthropic indeed, opencode had wayyy better experience than claude code.

by CoolCold

1 subcomments

Genuine question, as someone who never used Claude Code, but used OpenCode/Aider/GeminiCli - as many here say Opencode is better, mind sharing why (from end user perspective)?
I was thinking to try Claude Code later and may reconsider doing so.

by novoreorx

0 subcomment

Claude Code subscription is called for a reason, it's not Anthropic API subscription…
And Claude Code Pro is also similar to ChatGPT Pro, being used in a TUI does not mean it is equivalent to an API.

by B480FA8D

1 subcomments

A crucial context is that this "block" is resolved (for now) via bumping version numbers. It is almost as if Anthropic deployed this to test the water on community reaction... Right now it is trivial to fingerprint opencode users without deep inspection into the conversations (privacy conerns), but Anthropic is not doing that.
https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/commit/5e0125b78c8da09...

0 subcomment

by planckscnst

0 subcomment

I've been (adding an OpenCode feature that allows the LLM to edit its own context)[1] and trying to debug an issue with the Anthropic API because I'm calling it with missing fields that it expects. I hope my multiple erronious API calls aren't what triggered this decision
[1]: https://github.com/Vibecodelicious/opencode/tree/surgical_co...

by casparvitch

0 subcomment

Unsure of the other competition, but I can vouch for synthetic.new's subscription for GLM (+ other open models). Note quite as accurate as Anthropic's models but good enough for basically everything I do.

by d4rkp4ttern

0 subcomment

Curious about portability of CC -> OpenCode. I wonder how much of my CC setup (skills, commands, agents, hooks etc) will work if I were to switch to OpenCode.

by hakanderyal

0 subcomment

If this helps to keep the $200 around longer, I’m happy.
The thing I most fear is them banning multiple accounts. That would be very expensive for a lot of folks.

by pmihaylov

0 subcomment

I have a background agents app I'm running - https://claudecontrol.com and it seems I am not impacted by this change. My anthropic sub still works fine.
I believe this is because I am using claude code as a CLI for SDK purposes vs using it as a typescript library. Quite a fortunate choice at the time!

by imdsm

1 subcomments

Anthropic should buy OpenCode and merge with CC

by pietz

0 subcomment

Honest question: Why would I use Claude with OpenCode if I have a Claude Max subscription? Why not Claude Code?

0 subcomment

by azuanrb

0 subcomment

I’m curious whether this is related to the recent update. When I opened Claude Code, I was greeted with a “Help improve Claude” message that changes the retention policy from 30 days to 5 long years.
They can’t apply these changes or update parts of the flow for the non-Claude CLI, which explains their latest move.

by baq

1 subcomments

Meanwhile gpt codex 5.2 was never available outside of codex and nobody made a fuss out of it.

by casparvitch

0 subcomment

It appears [0] there is now a fix/workaround (?)
[0] https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-auth/pull/11

by ehsanu1

0 subcomment

I understand them not wanting to allow non-coding agents to use the subscription, but why specifically block another coding agent? Is the value Anthropic gets from users specifically using claude code that high? Is it about the training data opt-ins?

by macinjosh

0 subcomment

OpenCode has a workaround already: https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-auth/pull/11

0 subcomment

by muppetman

11 subcomments

I feel like I'm the only person on this site that doesn't use AI for coding. I guess there's probably a lot of other people that haven't commented on this story who don't use it either. But when I read about how much hype and all that sort of stuff there is in the AI industry, and then I see the amount of posts and commentary and deep technical discussion about how this feature has affected people, I'm not so sure. Everyone I know hates AI and how it's been shoved into every corner of our lives, but I look here and it's insanely popular. Anyway, sorry this was a very off topic comment. It's just very interesting to me that the hype isn't all just hype.

by nake89

1 subcomments

Hopefully this doesn't happen with GitHub Copilot. OpenCode is fantastic. They offer a server and an SDK. This means I build amazing personal tools. GitHub Copilots low price + OpenCode is just amazing.

by kirubakaran

0 subcomment

So is this the Bezos play of depressing the acquisition price? iirc Bezos froze the Amazon referral program of GoodReads.com to force them to take a lower price. If so, shame on them!

by gaigalas

0 subcomment

So, models are officially a commodity now.
The battle is for the harness layer. And it's quickly going the commodity way as well.
What's left for boutique-style AI companies?

by StarterPro

0 subcomment

Why don't you just ask Claude Code to write you a workaround? I'm sure if you say "fix plz" enough times, it'll work eventually.

by zeroDivisible

0 subcomment

It doesn't mean much but I cancelled my 5x Max subscription to Claude. Only way how I can tell them what I think about this change.

by vldszn

0 subcomment

At this point, Anthropic should acquihire OpenCode.

by Garlef

0 subcomment

Maybe a subscription based payment model would also work for in general?
Similar to a gym membership where only a small part of the paying users actually show up.

by ankit219

0 subcomment

This was always against the terms of service. Took too long to crack down on it.
There seems to be a lot of FUD on how anthropic prices it. but i think many devs and harness builders are intentionally misrespresenting things to build pressure.
API capacity has specific SLAs and the infra is for peak capacity expectation. API demand is notoriously spiky, especially when you don't know who is going to be using it via the third party. At any given time you would have 20%-30% utilization, given the api is mostly used by tools like Cursor who have a system of routing by themselves. For subs, they can use the unused capacity (with high priority to API requests). The marginal cost of a query is not as high especially given kv cache and continuous batching (and with new parallelism techniques). With subs, the number is expected, the concurrency can be modelled, and hence the price per token is lower.
With third party APIs reverse engineering that, it breaks the whole thing in two ways - one more pressure via subs. Claude code rarely parallelizes requests while Cline does it every time (for example). It also cancels out the peak capacity estimation. In a way you could argue that same users doing it via subs woudl have been doing it via api too, but given the pricing differences, not the same. This ends up affecting people legitimately using the subscription.

by mrdw

0 subcomment

just use free antigravity subscription with Opus 4.5 and reverse engineered API, and bunch of cheap google accounts

by ChaseRensberger

0 subcomment

seems to be an easy fix already up: https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode-anthropic-auth/pull/10

by hooverd

0 subcomment

Cynically, I think they're in a Gmail 2008 era right now.

by nomadygnt

0 subcomment

Honestly with how good OpenCode is, this really just makes GitHub copilot the best subscription for the average user. It’s the cheapest. It’s free for students. You get access to all of OpenAI models AND Anthropic models AND Gemini models and you still have a pretty dang good CLI/TUI (OC, not Copilot CLI). And the limits are pretty reasonable. I’ve never hit the limits in a month though admittedly I am not a “five agents at once” kind of vibe coder.

by selectnull

0 subcomment

I'm willing to cancel my Claude subscription because of this.

by casparvitch

1 subcomments

Maybe Anthropic saw Yegge's gas town concept and got scared off?

by noobcoder

0 subcomment

Well totally within Anthropic’s rights, but still a bad look.

by titaniumrain

0 subcomment

Anthropic has a bunch of weirdos making decisions.

0 subcomment

by cloudking

3 subcomments

Why is OpenCode better than Claude Code?

by kburman

1 subcomments

It’s the standard enshittification lifecycle: subsidize usage to get adoption, then lock down the API to force users into a controlled environment where you can squeeze them.
Like Reddit, they realized they can't show ads (or control the user journey) if everyone is using a third-party client. The $200 subscription isn't a pricing tier. It's a customer acquisition cost for their proprietary platform. Third-party clients defeat that purpose.

by krater23

1 subcomments

Hold on tight, the wild journey to enshittification has begun.

by galsjel

0 subcomment

Just open source Claude Code and maybe it gets supported by fostering a community... Oh wait, no lock in? Sorry there's no stakeholder value in that.

by dmezzetti

0 subcomment

Two words: Open Source.

by rvcdbn

1 subcomments

couldn't opencode just switch to agent sdk?

by ares623

0 subcomment

A rare glimpse into the enshittification that is to come to these tools. It’s only a matter of time.

by udntwanthesmok

0 subcomment

Ive the workaround its not that complex; yall, its a REPL on your machine fellas, do you really think you can stop anyone from proxying whatever we damn want through it?

by commanderkeen08

4 subcomments

No. Do you realize how much of a joke Claude code is? Under the hood. How they implemented client auth?
Well let me tell you
https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/blob/dev/packages/open...
You literally send your first message “you are Claude code”
The fact that this ever worked was insane.
Headline is more like anthropic vibes a bug and finally catches it.

by kachapopopow

0 subcomment

as much as I love opus I hate this company (not for the reasons you'd think thought). I just have a proxy that exposes an unauthenticated endpoint and bypasses all their attempts at banning for opencode usage since I was already on like my 5th claude account trying to get around random bans.

by bilalbayram

0 subcomment

its just sad

by honeyspoon

0 subcomment

end of an era

by planet_1649c

0 subcomment

Damn :((

by TiredOfLife

0 subcomment

Reminder that Anthropic owns Bun.

by willvarfar

0 subcomment

Presumably there will soon be banner ads in Claude Code then? </s>

by behnamoh

5 subcomments

Anthro is having its Apple moment: too many customers means the company is always on the news, for better or worse.
When iPhones receive negative reviews it's not like only Apple screwed up; others did too, but they sell so much less than Apple that no one hears about them:
```
    "Apple violated my privacy a tiny bit" makes the news;
    "Xiaomi sold my fingerprint info to 3rd party vendors" doesn't.
```
Similarly, Anthropic is under heavy fire recently because frankly, Claude Code is the best coding agent out there, and it's not even close.