[skeledrew]

> All I care about is the access to the models through the client that I was already using!

But that's not a product that they're offering. That ability was an undesired (from their business perspective) trait that they're now rectifying.

[rglullis]

> But that's not a product that they're offering

Of course it was.

  - It was possible to do it.
  - OpenCode did not break any security protocol in order to integrate with them. 
  - OAuth is *precisely* a system to let third-party applications use their resources.

It's not what they wanted, but it's not my problem. The fact that I was a customer does not mean that I need to protective of their profits.

> (from their business perspective)

So what?!

Basically, they set up an strategy they thought it was going to work in their favor (offer a subsidized service to try to lock in customers), someone else found a way to turn things around and you believe that we should be okay with this?!

Honestly, I do not understand why so many people here think it is fine to let these huge corporations run the same exploitation playbook over and over again. Basically they set up a mouse trap full of cheese and now that the mice found a way to enjoy the cheese without getting their necks broken, they are crying about it?

[skeledrew]

> Of course it was.

You'd have to point me to an authoritative source on that (explicitly saying users are allowed to use their models via private APIs in apps of the user's choosing). If something isn't explicitly provided in the contract, then it can be changed at any point in any way without notice.

Honestly, I'm not big on capitalism in general, but I don't understand why people should expect companies to provide things exactly the way they want at exactly the prices they would like to be charged (if at all). That's just not how the world/system works, or should, especially given there are so many alternatives available. If one doesn't like what's happening with some service, then let the wallet do the talking and move to another. Emigration is a far more effective message than complaining.

[rglullis]

> I don't understand why people should expect companies to provide things exactly the way they want at exactly the prices they would like to be charged

This is a gross misrepresentation of my argument.

I wouldn't be complaining at all if they went up and said "sorry, we are not going to subsidize anyone anymore, so the prices are going up", and I wouldn't be complaining if they came up and said "sorry, using a third party client incurs an extra cost of on our side, so if you want to use that you'd have to pay extra".

What I am against is the anti-competitive practice of price discrimination and the tie-in sale of a service. If they are going to play this game, then they better be ready for the case the strategy backfires. Otherwise it's just a game of "heads I win, tails you lose" where they always get to make up the rules.

> Emigration is a far more effective message than complaining.

Why not both? I cancelled my Pro subscription today. I will stick with just Ollama cloud.

[skeledrew]

It's not tie-in. 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. The apps are technically negative value for them from a purely upfront cost perspective as their use trigger these discounts and they're free by themselves.

Good on you re that cancel. May you find greener grass elsewhere.

[rglullis]

> 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.

[skeledrew]

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.