> They give users 2 choices: a) use their service via their public API, with the client(s) of their choice, at the regular price point; b) use the apps they provide, which use a private API, at a discounted price point.
There was a third choice, which was better than both of the ones presented: use any other client that can talk with our API, at whatever usage rate they deemed acceptable. If the "private API" was accessible via OAuth, then it's hardly "private".
We can argue all day, when I signed up there was nothing saying that access was exclusive via the tools they provided. They changed the rules not because it was costing them more (or even if does, they are losing money on Pro customers anyway so arguing about that is silly) but because they opened themselves for some valid and fair competition.
There was no third choice if they didn't explicitly state that there was.
> If the "private API" was accessible via OAuth, then it's hardly "private".
If you invite people on your porch for a party, and someone finds that you left the house key under the mat and went off to restock, then it's hardly "private". It's perfectly fine for whomever feels like to take the party indoors without your permission. Pretty much what you're saying, reframed, but I seriously doubt you'd agree to random people entering parts of yours premises to which you didn't explicitly invite them.
Try not making it sound like the company is doing me a favor by letting me access the thing I was paying for. I wasn't "invited to a party", I was sold on an agreement that by paying a guaranteed monthly fee I could have access to the model at a rate that was lower than the pay-as-you-go rate from the API.
The primary offering is access to the models. That's what the subscription is about. They can try as hard as they want to market it as Claude being the product and access to the model being an ancillary service, but to me this is just marketing bs. No one is signing-up for Claude because their website is nicer, or because of Claude Code.
> I was sold on an agreement that by paying a guaranteed monthly fee I could have access to the model at a rate that was lower than the pay-as-you-go rate from the API
Yes, that agreement is there, with the condition that their app is used. That's option B. And I'd think it fairly obvious that if one has to go to extraordinary lengths to gain access, like finding a key under a mat, or needing to login with an official client to gain access to a token for an unofficial client, then - implicitly - it's highly unlikely that that method of access is part of the agreement. And Anthropic has now made it explicitly clear that no, that access method is not part of the agreement.
Nope, there's no tie-in sale[0] as you do not pay for the apps. And particularly, there's no real competition angle[1] as the market is loaded with LLM service providers, not to mention downloadable options.
There's a reason in this particular case why the particular APIs aren't documented: they aren't intended for public use. And they've made it crystal clear, so all you have to do now is take your wallet somewhere that offers the access you desire. You have no case here.
> as the market is loaded with LLM service providers
The LLMs are not commodities. The program that interfaces with them are.
> they aren't intended for public use.
It was available at first, it made possible for people to use the LLM model without having to use their specific CLI tool. It's a bait-and-switch.
> You have no case here.
I don't need to have a legal case here to keep thinking it's a morally dsgusting practice. What I don't understand is: why do you keep defending it? Is there something in it for you, or are you just trying to rationalize your way into acceptance of their terms?
They're commodities to an appreciable extent. They all do generally the same thing, with the differing factor being output quality.
People can still use their model without using their CLI. Use the API that they've provided for such. They didn't break the agreement that they made; they clarified the terms of their existing agreement.
There's nothing morally disgusting here. They're providing a service that they've poured a lot of effort into, in a way that's (hopefully) sustainable while being valuable to users. There's significant cost involved, which must be footed by those who value and use the service. They found a way to offer a discount for some of that cost, providing even greater value, but it has a condition which is possibly directly connected to their ability to provide that discount. And you want to benefit from that discount and avoid that condition.
I have no horses here; heck I wish they could offer it all completely free. But the reality is that there's ongoing cost to them in research, hardware, electricity, etc that has to be paid. And unlike many other large companies out there, they're providing something seriously valuable (you wouldn't be complaining so passionately if it wasn't), and they haven't enshittified it (unlike what the other large player is increasingly doing, but that's actually also understandable to a point). What I see here is you - as in all who want discount without condition - acting in a way that, if allowed, will very likely lead to the detriment of the service, which I definitely don't want to happen as that'll leave the market worse off. If you like the value so much that you find it next to impossible to stay away, then you should be happily following their agreement to the letter, and lean toward paying the full amount to help ensure their continued sustainability. It's well worth it.
> They found a way to offer a discount for some of that cost, providing even greater value, but it has a condition which is possibly directly connected to their ability to provide that discount.
That is a lie. It's the excuse they are giving, but it has no grounds in reality. They are setting a trap, and hoping that most do what you are doing and reason your way into falling for it.
> I wish they could offer it all completely free.
No, that would be even worse. What I wish is that dropped all subsidies. Charge one price for pay-as-you go API access, charge a monthly subscription to get some "volume discount" and to secure minimum revenue per user, but DO NOT tie the discount to some orthogonal product.
My complaint is not "things are more expensive now", it's "they are making it clear that they are keeping the price artificially low in the hopes that they can find a way to exploit the user base later".
> If you like the value so much that you find it next to impossible to stay away.
Sorry, you must be mistaking me with some other bootlicker. I just cancelled it, switched to Ollama Cloud and got OpenWebUI locally.
> toward paying the full amount to help ensure their continued sustainability.
It's not sustainable. Measures like these are a clear indicator that inference alone is not profitable, not at $20/month at least.
> It's well worth it.
Giving away your agency, letting corporations push their narratives without a minimum of pushback, contributing to the acceleration of capital concentration and encouraging others to do it? For what, some marginal benefit or "the alternatives are even worse"? Fuck that! This is almost as morally reprehensible as them.
Actually I came to that thought independently, then saw others saying the same. And you can't say it's a lie because you don't know how their backend works. I assume you know of prompt caching; that's one way to huge token savings, and works best with a cooperative client. I've also noticed that whenever I send an initial prompt to their web chat, the first message that pops up is the system trying to find skills that can handle the request. Who knows what skills they have available that can handle special cases and thus also contribute to savings, which also requires a cooperative client.
> some orthogonal product.
That's just your assumption. And if they really are "keeping the price artificially low", it's still to the benefit of users who don't mind the condition of using an official client. It's absolutely up to them how they run their business, as long as they aren't actually exploiting users in a market they've cornered (which they can't with all the providers out there).
> It's not sustainable
If not then eventually they'll up the price, or drop it and only offer the per token API. Until that hypothetical there will still be those who benefited from it while it was though. Nothing can change the fact that they've been offering users great value. It's kinda wild you're trying to detract from that even now, with 0 basis. Enjoy Ollama Cloud.
You have to pick a lane: either their backend is a commodity (interchangeable) or it's not.
> as long as they aren't actually exploiting users in a market they've cornered (which they can't with all the providers out there).
Price dumping and tie-in sales are business practices that destroy the market. They make it impossible for smaller players to compete. You don't get to feel exploited today, but you will get exploited in the end. But by then it will be too late.
> Nothing can change the fact that they've been offering users great value.
So was Über, so was AirBNB, so was every VC-funded company that followed the enshittification playbook. You have to be incredibly naive and/or short-sighted and/or selfish to keep condoning these practices.
Their models are accessed via their backend; the models are not the backend. Their backend is unique from a features perspective, while their models are unique by virtue of training data+technique.
> They make it impossible for smaller players to compete.
No they don't. Ollama is healthy, OpenRouter, and quite a few others. Then there are actual model makers such as DeepSeek, Google, Mistral, Zai, etc. The lists march on and nobody wanting access to LLMs is left in the cold. Somehow you're still trying to stick terms which just don't apply to the status quo. Unless you believe that Anthropic's offerings are so unique and critical to people's well-being that they should be treated as a public utility or something, which is laughable.
> So was Über, so was AirBNB
There is the option of not using them. But they actually have cornered a part of the market as well, even if that part is primarily comprised of well-to-do's ready to throw money to avoid the slightest inconvenience.
There was a third choice, which was better than both of the ones presented: use any other client that can talk with our API, at whatever usage rate they deemed acceptable. If the "private API" was accessible via OAuth, then it's hardly "private".
We can argue all day, when I signed up there was nothing saying that access was exclusive via the tools they provided. They changed the rules not because it was costing them more (or even if does, they are losing money on Pro customers anyway so arguing about that is silly) but because they opened themselves for some valid and fair competition.