Hacker News Reader

Comment by Daviey | Hacker News Reader

You've still not explained why, you've just reasserted "because they said so".

What is the upside to Anthropic if we use ClaudeCode but not OpenCode? If it is such a loss leader, why would they even offer it? By using it, even within their terms, you are still abusing their good will. No?

(You also said the alternative to not liking the terms is to use their API. There is another alternative, which is to keep using it against their ToS and risk a ban. Or use a different provider. So the situation is more nuanced than "this" or "that")

View on HN

> you've just reasserted "because they said so".

Yes. That is all that matters. That is the contract you've signed with the business, end of story.

They have their reasons (3P clients suck at caching, this is a subsidized tier to create subscription lock in, etc) but that's besides the point. If you sign a contract, you abide by its restrictions or you categorically abusing the offering.

> There is another alternative, which is to keep using it against their ToS and risk a ban.

No one working on a project of value and no sane business would do this. The people doing this are not serious/mature people. Frankly any dev that intentionally does this at a real company would be fired.

Ah, but the ToS I agreed to didn't state it.. they even admitted it wasn't clear and then unilaterally revised it.

And yes, I agree businesses must abide by the ToS, it would be too much of a business risk not to.. but individual users, using for their own purpose can make their own choice.

An individual choosing to not abide by their unfair ToS is perfectly reasonable and doesn't make them unserious or immature people, and it's pretty weak to make it an ad hominem attack.

But if you think their reasoning is solely that opencode has poor caching, then the solution is to make it chew through the quota quicker (which i think it already does), or provide guidance on how to do it better. The arms race of trying to block it will be a war they will eventually lose.

> then the solution is to make it chew through the quota quicker

This is terrible from a product perspective. Right now they can subsidize workflows with poor caching performance.

If OSS hacked clients become a big thing, they can't do this anymore.

How does that make sense?

If Claude code can have great performance by optimised caching and Opencode doesn't.. I'll run out of quota using a third party client and have a terrible experience, and the choose to use Claude code instead because wit is superior.

So why not simple quota counting?

> So why not simple quota counting?

Consider this: you are Anthropic. There are some Claude Code used cases that will have poor caching performance. Let's say these are 10% of your use cases.

You explicitly don't count cache misses right now because it would make the UX poor for these use cases. It's no big deal since the remaining 90% of use cases can subsidize the 10%.

Now open source clients become a thing. Instead of 10% of usage having poor caching, it grows to 50%. You can no longer subsidize those users because the economics don't work.

You have to start counting cache misses and the UX goes to shit for everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com