[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.

[rglullis]

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.

[skeledrew]

> 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.

[rglullis]

> that agreement is there, with the condition that their app is used.

And setting this condition is what constitutes a tie-in sale.

> if one has to go to extraordinary lengths to gain access

BS! Sorry, there is nothing extraordinary about using an undocumented API.

[skeledrew]

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.

[0] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tie-in

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

[rglullis]

> 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?

[skeledrew]

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.