Apparently nobody gets the Anthropic move: they are only good at coding and that's a very thin layer. Opencode and other tools are game for collecting inputs and outputs that can later be used to train their own models - not necessarily being done now, but they could - Cursor did it. Also Opencode makes it all easily swappable, just eval something by popping another API key and let's see if Codex or GLM can replicate the CC solution. Oh, it does! So let's cancel Claude and save big bucks!

Even though CC the agent supports external providers (via the ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL env var), they are working hard on making it impossible for other models to support their every increasing agent feature set (skills, teleport and remote sessions, LSP, Chrome integration, etc). The move totally makes sense, like it or not.

Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok are all more or less on par with each other, or a couple months behind at most. Chinese open models are also not far behind.

There's nothing inherent to these products to make them "sticky". If your tooling is designed for it, you can trivially switch models at any time. Mid-conversation, even. And it just works.

When you have basically equivalent products with no switching cost, you have perfect competition. They are all commodities. And that means: none of them can make a profit. It's a basic law of economics.

If they can't make a profit, no matter how revolutionary the tech is, their valuation is not justified, and they will be in big trouble when people figure this out.

So they need to make the product sticky somehow. So they:

1. Add a subscription payment model. Once you are paying a subscription fee, then the calculus on switching changes: if you only maintain one subscription, you have a strong reason to stick with it for everything.

2. Force you to use their client app, which only talks to their model, so you can't even try other models without changing your whole workflow, which most people won't bother to do.

These are bog standard tactics across the tech industry and beyond for limiting competitive pressure.

Everyone is mad about #2 but honestly I'm more mad about #1. The best thing for consumers would be if all these model providers strictly provided usage-based API pricing, which makes switching easy. But right now the subscription prices offer an enormous discount over API pricing, which just shows how much they are really desperate to create some sort of stickiness. The subscriptions don't even provide the "peace of mind" benefit that Spotify-like subscription models provide, where you don't have to worry about usage, because they still have enforced usage limits that people regularly hit. It's just purely a discount offered for locking yourself in.

But again I can't really be that mad because of course they are doing this, not doing it would be terrible business strategy.

In all seriousness, I really don't think it should be a controversial opinion that if you are using a companies servers for something that they have a right to dictate how and the terms. It is up to the user to determine if that is acceptable or not.

Particularly when there is a subscription involved. You are very clearly paying for "Claude Code" which is very clearly a piece of software connected to an online component. You are not paying for API access or anything along those lines.

Especially when they are not blocking the ability to use the normal API with these tools.

I really don't want to defend any of these AI companies but if I remove the AI part of this and just focus on it being a tool, this seems perfectly fine what they are doing.

While Anthropic was within their right to enforce their ToS, the move has changed my perspective. In the language of moats and lock-ins, it all makes sense, sure, but as a potential sign of the shape of things to come, it has hurt my trust in CC as something I want to build on top of.

Yesterday, I finally installed OpenCode and tried it. It feels genuinely more polished, and the results were satisfactory.

So while this is all very anecdotal, here's what Anthropic accomplished:

1) I no longer feel like evangelizing for their tool 2) I installed a competitor and validated it's as good as others are claiming.

Perhaps I'm overly dramatic, but I can't imagine I'm the only one who has responded this way.

It's too soon to tell if that's true or not.

One of the features of vertical integration is that there will be folks complaining about it. Like the way folks would complain that it's impossible or hard to install macOS on anything other than a Mac, and impossible or hard to install anything other than macOS on a Mac. Yet, despite those complains, the Mac and macOS are successful. So: the fact that folks are complaining about Anthropic's vertical integration play does not mean that it won't be successful for them. It also doesn't mean that they are clueless

I think Anthropic took a look at the market, realized they had a strong position with Claude Code, and decided to capitalize on that rather than joining the race to the bottom and becoming just another option for OpenCode. OpenAI looked at the market and decided the opposite, because they don’t have strong market share with Codex and they would rather undercut Claude, which is a legitimate strategy. Don’t know who wins.

I feel like Anthropic is probably making the right choice here. What do they have to gain by helping competitors undercut them? I don’t think Anthropic wants to be just another model that you could use. They want to be the ecosystem you use to code. Probably better to try to win a profitable market than to try to compete to be the cheapest commodity model.

It is blocking the usage of subsidized subscriptions that are intended to be used with Claude Code, with third party tools. Those thirdy party tools can still use claude's api, but paying API rates, which are not subsidized or at least are a lot less subsidized.

    API Error: 529 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"overloaded_error","message":"Overloade    d"},"request_id":"req_011CX42ZX2u

Also You can still use OpenCode with API access...so no they didn't lock anything down. Basically the people just don't want to pay what is fair and is whining about it.

It looks like they need to update their FAQ:

Q: Do I need extra AI subscriptions to use OpenCode? A: Not necessarily, OpenCode comes with a set of free models that you can use without creating an account. Aside from these, you can use any of the popular coding models by creating a Zen account. While we encourage users to use Zen, OpenCode also works with all popular providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI etc. You can even connect your local models.

What's changed is that I thought I was subscribing to use their API services, claude code as a service. They are now pushing it more as using only their specific CLI tool.

As a user, I am surprised, because why should it matter to them whether I open my terminal and start up using `claude code`, `opencode`, `pi`, or any other local client I want to send bits to their server.

Now, having done some work with other clients, I can kind of see the point of this change (to play devils' advocate): their subscription limits likely assume aggregate usage among all users doing X amount of coding, which when used with their own cli tool for coding works especially well with client side and service caching and tool-calls log filtering— something 3rd party clients also do to varying effectivness.

So I can imagine a reason why they might make this change, but again, I thought I was subscribing to a prepaid account where I can use their service within certain session limits, and I see no reason why the cli tool on my laptop would matter then.

Anthropic should be profitable from the inference alone. That's their product...but they (like others) aren't.

This makes some sense now why they want to control usage/distribution. I bet they have a very good chunk of subscribers to Claude Code who aren't using their credits. So they probably don't have any chance at being profitable without this. Not a great place to be.

Anthropic hasn't changed their licensing, just enforcing what the licensing always required by closing a loophole.

Business models aside - what is interesting is whether the agent :: model relationship requires a proprietary context and language such that without that mutual interaction, will the coding accuracy and safety be somehow degraded? Or, will it be possible for agentic frameworks to plug and play with models that will generate similar outcomes.

So far, we tend to see the former is needed --- that there are improvements that can be had when the agentic framework and model language understanding are optimized to their unique properties. Not sure how long this distinction will matter, though.

They simply stopped people from abusing a accessibility feature that they created for their own product.

that and they "stole" my money

> > > one word: repositories view

> > what do you mean?

> It's possible, and the solution is so silly that I laughed when I finally figured it out. I'm not sure if I should just post it plainly here since Anthropic might block it which would affect opencode as well, but here's a hint. After you exhaust every option and you're sure the requests you're sending are identical to CC's, check the one thing that probably still isn't identical yet (hint: it comes AFTER the headers).

I guess Anthropic noticed.

But they also have shown a weakness by failing to understand why people might want to do this (use their Max membership with OpenCode etc instead).

People aren't using opencode or crush with their Claude Code memberships because they're trying to exploit or overuse tokens or something. That isn't possible.

They do it because Claude Code the tool itself is full of bugs and has performance issues, and OpenCode is of higher quality, has more open (surprise) development, is more responsive to bug fixes, and gives them far more knobs and dials to control how it works.

I use Claude Code quite a bit and there isn't a session that goes by where I don't bump into a sharp edge of some kind. Notorious terminal rendering issues, slow memory leaks, or compaction related bugs that took them 3 months to fix...

Failure to deal with quality issues and listen to customers is hardly a good sign of company culture, leading up to IPO... If they're trying to build a moat... this isn't a strong way to do it.

If you want to own the market and have complete control at the tooling level, you're simply going to have to make a better product. With their mountain of cash and army of engineers at their disposal ... they absolutely could. But they're not.

- Google cutting off using search from other than their home page code. (At one time there was an official SOAP API for Google Search.)

- Apple cutting off non-Apple hardware in the Power PC era. ("We lost our license for speeding", from a third party seller of faster hardware.)

- Twitter cutting off external clients. (The end of TweetDeck.)

But it was only a matter of time before: a) Microsoft reclaimed its IDE b) Frontier model providers reclaimed their models

Sage advice: don’t fill potholes in another company’s roadmap.

The truth is Opencode didn’t have to bake this in. People who can will proxy Claude’s API anyways through other means.

Power users?

Any such users in the thread? I used third-party clients for a little while but I did not see the benefit.

(I was more likely to do the opposite, and run Claude Code with a proxy which allows me to use it with other models. Though after much experimentation I ended up back on Claude.)

It's a trivial violation until it isn't. Competitors need to be fought off early else they become much harder to fight in the future.

I remember the story used to be the other way around - "just a wrapper", "wrapper AI startups" were everywhere, nobody trusted they can make it.

Maybe being "just a model provider" or "just a LLM wrapper" matter less than the context of work. What I mean is that benefits collect not at the model provider, nor at the wrapper provider, but where the usage takes place, who sets the prompts and uses the code gets the lion share of benefits from AI.

Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46549823

This will be completely forgotten in like a week.

And if you leave because of this, more support for those that abide by the TOS and stay.

This is akin to someone selling/operating a cloud platform named Blazure and it’s just a front for Azure.

My view to everyone is to stop trying to control the ecosystem and just build shit. Fast.

when i signed up for a subscription it was with the understanding that id be able to use those tokens on which ever agent i wanted to play with, and that as i got to something i want to have persistently running, id switch that to be an api client. i quickly figured out that claude code was the current best coding agent for the model, but seeing other folks calling opus now im not actually sure thats true, in which case that subsidized token might be more expensive to both me and anthropic, because its not the most token efficient route over their model.

i dislike that now i wont be able to feed them training data using many different starting points and paths, which i think over time will have a bad impact on their models making them worse over time

I have a gut feeling that the real top dog harness (profitability, sticky users, growth) is VSCode + Copilot.

What people expect from them?

That is it. That is the problem. Everyone wants vertical integration and to corner the market, from Standard Oil on down. And everyone who wants that should be smacked down.

This is really the salient point for everything. The models are expensive to train but ultimately worthless if paying customers aren't captive and can switch at will. The issue it that a lot of the recent gains are in the prefill inference, and in the model's RAG, which aren't truly a most (except maybe for Google, if their RAG include Google scholar). That's where the bubble will pop.

Archaeologist.dev Made a Big Mistake

If guided by this morality column, Archaeologist should immediately stop using pretty-much anything they are using in their life. There's no company today that doesn't have their hands dirty. The life is a dance between choosing the least bad option, not radically cutting off any sight of "bad".

what? that's a thing ? why would a vibe coder be "renowned"? I use Claude every day but this is just too much.

The best pressure on companies comes from viable alternatives, not from boycotts that leave you without tools altogether.

That said, the author is deluding themselves if they think OpenAI is supporting OpenCode in earnest. Unlike Anthropic, they don't have explicit usage limits. It's a 'we'll let you use our service as long as we want' kind of subscription.

I got a paid plan with GPT 5.2 and after a day of usage was just told 'try again in a week'. Then in a week I hit it again and didn't even get a time estimate. I wasn't even doing anything heavy or high reasoning. It's not a dependable service.

Or maybe they did consider but were capital/ inference capacity constrained to keep serving at this pricepoint. Pretty sure without any constraints they would eagerly go for 100% market share.

CC users give them the reigns to the agentic process. Non CC users take (mostly indirect) control themselves. So if you are forced to slow growth, where do you push the break (by charging defacto more per (api) token)?

I think these third party clients put their customers at risk. Most of them likely did not realize that the tools were doing something that violated ToS. Using these tools put many of those users at risk of account bans and risk Anthropic pulling the plug entirely and raising prices, which would be bad for everyone