The Anthropic website has become inconsistent. Some places say Claude Code is included in the Pro plan, other pages don't.

“You asked, and we listened: Introducing Max Plus, our biggest plan yet, designed for those…” blah blah

I dunno, I'm no business genius, but I think we're starting to see these companies try to find ways to make money instead of losing it.

The million token context + reduced caching period + new models using more tokens made this a probably unpopular but perhaps unavoidable development.

There's a hard problem here balancing costs and experience. I'm afraid despite the bad experience for people that this is necessary and $20/month was just too big a loss to sustain.

Makes me curious about the internal thinking. One theory being they are in a capacity crisis and knocking Pro users off Claude Code is an emergency brake getting pulled. But an opposite theory is it's a revenue move and they think they have the lock in to pull it off. Especially if they are building up to IPO.

Interestingly the Team subscription which is still $20/month/seat still includes Claude Code. But you need minimum 5 seats. So it could be a way to force people off individual plans and into enterprise plans where possibly things scale better for them, especially IPO/wise. When one user wants it in a company, probably they go buy 5 seats.

This does not explain the changes to documentation.

I realize this duplicates a lot of sentiment already in this thread but anyone here with pull at Anthropic please understand it will undo a lot of the goodwill that made Claude so successful in the first place.

> For clarity, we're running a small test on ~2% of new prosumer signups. Existing Pro and Max subscribers aren't affected.

https://x.com/TheAmolAvasare/status/2046724659039932830

(Head of Growth @AnthropicAI)

> When we launched Max a year ago, it didn't include Claude Code, Cowork didn't exist, and agents that run for hours weren't a thing. Max was designed for heavy chat usage, that's it.

Is there a wager that this is 100% foreshadowing Claude Code will be removed from the $100-200/month Max plans soon and go to something like API-only? Or only available on like a new $500-1,000/month plan? Restrict the $100-200/month ones to Claude.ai (website) or Claude desktop app only?

Either way, doesn't seem good to say it's a small test and then start justifying it in this direction.

So I pay for Codex instead.

I remember when they first added Claude Code to Pro — it was limited to Max initially — and my first thought was that it seemed kind of stupid, because at one fifth of my current limit, I would be hitting walls all the time...

Opus 4.6 is giving 2, maybe 3 questions before blowing through the Pro 5 hour limit as well. We are forced to use Sonnet which makes the same mistakes over and over and then to start trying with other companies. To make matters worse, it reuses old code as we try to survive between credit expiry so it re-introduced issues into the code with the limited credits, that we had already fixed on our own and with other models.

Anthropic in just a few days has gotten me to try GLM 5.1, the new Kimi, and back to OpenAI. OpenAI also seems to introduce new bugs without being carefully micromanaged. The advantage Claude has is that the models are more careful and can refactor code instead of leading to bloat as they go. But the throttling happening now is breaking things and making the entire subscription unusable. I really hope they fix it soon.

https://bsky.app/profile/mattgreenrocks.bsky.social/post/3mk...

Another example, I recently saw two people over on Twitter posting LLM responses at each other in a bitter argument about Vercel's security breach. They made no attempt to pretend they'd formulated the ripostes themselves, it was just screenshotting one-sided conversations... What's the point? They could've saved themselves the trouble by spawning two LLMs, naming them "John Doe" and "Fred Doe", then telling them to argue and post the name of the winner.

Disclaimer: I don't use Twitter, Bluesky, Mastodon, etc., so maybe it's not that deep.

While these tools stand to enable the democratization of productive capability in software engineering and other tasks (creating a renaissance for solopreneurs, let's say), what seems more likely to actually happen is that entrenched capital will become the only player with real access to this "knowledge as a utility" (was it Altman who called it that?).

We already see this playing out in two fronts: 1) the gradual reduction of services and 2) the DRAM market, where local-first tools (i.e., potential disruptors of the emerging "knowledge monopoly" created by the big AI firms) are being stifled by supply shortages. How many promising small-to-medium-sized competitors are being snuffed out of existence (or never starting) due to the insanity of the DRAM/storage/CPU (soon) markets?

The currently-subsidized access that we have to the big Opus-like models will, in parallel, be gradually be taken away until only the big players can afford it. And in the end what we will have is hyper-productive skeleton crews at a few consolidated firms performing (or selling expensive access to) basically all of the knowledge labor for society, with very little potential for disruption due to the hardware and "knowledge" scarcity engineered (in part, maybe) by this monopoly.

Not necessarily a closely held belief – just a hunch – which is why I want to see what parts of the picture I might be missing.

I could be connecting unrelated dots here, but it sure as hell seems quite coincidental to me.

If Anthropic continues to getting worse, try Amazon Kiro and other companies that run Claude on their own hardware.

It might be expensive and have a worse experience compared to Claude's code, but at least the model itself is the "original flavor."

These days, it's hard to ask for much.

Realistically the future of all this is that open models become good enough that LLM as a service becomes a commodity with a race to the bottom in terms of cost. Given where we are today I can easily see open weight models in 2-3 years making Anthropic and OpenAI irrelevant for everyday development work (I justify this like so: if my coding agent is 10x smarter than I am, how would I understand if it did all the right things? I want someone of roughly my intelligence for coding. I can see use cases for like independent pharma work or some such where supergenius level intelligence is justified, but for coding ability for mere mortals to reason about the code is probably more important).

Even the downtime would've been fine (as GitHub shows). Instead they're pissing it all away by letting employees make random announcements on random platforms.

Additionally I run a constant hacking contest between GPT and Claude. It’s a toy project and it simulates an attack/defense of a small corporate network.

Claude used to win pretty handily. Suddenly it’s started to lose 90% of the time. I thought GPT had gotten better but no, looking at the logs it seems that Claude is slower and more prone to running in circles. This is still the case when switching to Opus 4.7.

I don’t know what that means but it’s undoubtedly worse.

That is the only way to avoid being held captive by Anthropic / Meta / Google.

From what I can tell Opus 4.7 is more resource-intensive than Opus 4.6 is more resource-intensive than Opus 4.5.