I get it though, Anthropic has to protect their investment in their work. They are in a position to do that, whereas most of us are not.
Viewed another way, the preferential pricing they're giving to Claude Code (and only Claude Code) is anticompetitive behavior that may be illegal.
I've seen reports about this bug affecting Firefox users since Q3 2025. They were reported over various channels.
Not a fan of them prioritizing the combat against opencode instead of fixing issues that affect paying users.
I've found several reports about this issue. Seems they don't care about Firefox.
Edit: or should I say, the subscription is artificially cheap
Cry me a river - I never stop hearing how developers think their time is so valuable that no amount of AI use could possibly not be worth it. Yet suddenly, paying for what you use is "too expensive".
I'm getting sick of costs being distorted. It's resulting in dysfunctional methodologies where people are spinning up ridiculous number agents in the background, burning tokens to grind out solutions where a modicum of oversight or direction from a human would result in 10x less compute. At very least the costs should be realised by the people doing this.
Yeah, I noticed it. I use Claude, but I use it responsibly. I wonder how many "green" people run these instances in parallel. :D
The root cause is and remains their pricing: the delta between their token billing and their flat fee is just screaming to be exploited by a gray market.
I wonder if Opencode could use ACP protocol as well. ACP seems to be a good abstraction, I should probably learn more about it. Any TLDR's on how it works?
It also perhaps tries to preserve some moat around their product/service.
re the whole unused capacity is the nature of inference on GPUs. In any cluster, you can batch inputs (ie takes same time for say 1 query or 100 as they can be parallelized) and now continuous batching[1] exists. With API and bursty nature of requests, clusters would be at 40%-50% of peak API capacity. Makes sense to divert them to subscriptions. Reduces api costs in future, and gives anthropic a way to monetize unused capacity. But if everyone does it, then there is no unused capacity to manage and everyone loses.
> it uses API's unused capacity
I see no waiting or scheduling on my usage - it runs, what appears to be, full speed till I hit my 4 hour / 7 day limit and then it stops.
Claude code is cheap (via a subscription) because it is burning piles of investor cash, while making a bit back on API / pay per token users.
With continuous batching, you don't wait for entire previous batch to finish. The request goes in as one finishes. Hence the wait time is negligible.
The moat is Sonnet/Opus not Claude Code it can never be a client side app.
Cost arbitrage like this is short lived, until the org changes pricing.
For example Anthropic could release say an ultra plan at $500-$1000 with these restrictions removed/relaxed that reflects the true cost of the consumption, or get cost of inference down enough that even at $200 it is profitable for them and they will stop caring if higher bracket does not sell well, Then $200 is what market is ready to pay, there will be a % of users who will use it more than the rest as is the case in any software.
Either way the only money here i.e. the $200(or more) is only going to Anthropic.
[1] Perceived or real there is huge gulf in how Sonnet 4.5 is seen versus GPT 5.2-codex .
refulgentis•1h ago
I hope that why the following is purely a factual distinction, not an excuse or an attempt to empathize.
The difference between the other entities named and OpenCode is this:
OpenCode uses people’s Claude Code subscriptions. The other entities use the API.
Specifically, OpenCode reverse‑engineers Claude Code’s OAuth endpoints and API, then uses them. This is harmful from Anthropic's perspective because Claude Code is subsidized relative to the API.
Edit: I’m getting “You’re posting too fast” when replying to mr_mitm. For clarity, there is no separate API subscription. Anthropic wants you to use one of two funnels for coding with their LLMs: 1. The API (through any frontend), or 2. A subscription through an Anthropic‑owned frontend.
mr_mitm•1h ago
plusplusungood•1h ago
That's why we are supposed to have legislation to regulate that utilities and common carriers can't behave that way.
charcircuit•41m ago
codys•25m ago
lifetimerubyist•1h ago
hombre_fatal•1h ago
Maybe try the style where you start off with your position in a self-contained sentence, and then write a paragraph elaborating on it.
mr_mitm•58m ago
_medihack_•1h ago
bflesch•41m ago
It's up to operating systems to offer a content consumption experience for end users which reverses the role of platforms back to their original, most basic offers. They all try to force you into their applications which are full of tracking, advertisements, upsells, and anti-consumer interface design decisions.
Ideally the operating system would untangle the content from these applications and allow the end user to consume the content in a way that they want. For example Youtube offers search, video and comments. The operating system should extract these three things and create a good UI around it, while discarding the rest. Playlists and viewing history can all be managed in the offline part of the application. Spotify offers music, search and lyrics but they want you to watch videos and use social media components in their very opinionated UIs, while actively fighting you to create local backup of your music library.
Software like adblockers, yt-dlp and streamlink are already solving parts of these issues by untangling content from providers for local consumption in a trusted environment. For me the fight by Anthropic against OpenCode fits into this picture.
These companies are acting hostile even towards paying customers, each of them trying to build their walled gardens.