[xyzzy123]

I think the idea is that you can launder your team or product AI spend through your AWS account. This matters in Enterprise. It looks like the difference with Bedrock is that you access more "Claude platform" stuff than just the model.

More charitably, this lets an org heavy on AWS use their existing IAM / SSO / Finops processes to manage Claude stuff, this is genuinely helpful when otherwise you have to go thru several teams and build out whole new rails to adopt.

[stingraycharles]

> I think the idea is that you can launder your team or product AI spend through your AWS account.

This is exactly it. For any reasonably sized org, setting up new contracts with new vendors involves a lot of procurement, lawyers, negotiations, etc.

If a team can just click a button in AWS, there’s no issue.

This is a product / solution that solves an organizational problem, not a technical one.

I wouldn’t even call it a hack as much as extremely common a strategy.

[thedougd]

Sadly it’s going to be more nuanced.

The Bedrock models, at least, have additional click through EULAs for Anthropic models. You’re going to need to review and agree to those as well.

Claude is going to be marketplace spend and that’s usually capped towards your PPA at 25%.

[adolph]

> click through EULAs

Every year "don't agree to things on behalf of the company"

Every day "click here to agree that ..."

[xxpor]

I've always wondered how this plays out in practice. I might certify that I have signing authority but I most certainly do not. What happens in the US (in Delaware?) when there's a dispute?

[cj]

We had a customer try to back out of a contract by claiming the person signing didn't have authority. It didn't work because the person's manager (who has authority) was included in all of the communication.

Legally it didn't matter whether the signer had authority because the way the signer's company behaved during the signing process implied that the signer had authority.

E.g. If the CTO at a company tells a vendor to "send the contract over to my product manager" then the CTO created the impression with the counterparty that the product manager has authority, and the company will be hound to the contract based on that fact regardless of whether the product manager actually has authority or not.

I'm sure it's more nuanced than this, but my understanding is actual authority is less relevant than implied authority. E.g. if you have your board of directors take away the CEO's authority to sign a contract, it doesn't automatically invalidate everything the CEO signs, since a counterparty can reasonably assume that the CEO has authority just based on their job title.

[nerdsniper]

Generally any W-2 has authority to enter into contracts, strictly from the vendor’s POV. As a vendor you don’t need to get your customer’s publicly listed officer or director to sign off on contracts. The W-2 can also be fired for entering their employer into the contract, but that's not (directly) the vendor's problem.

Once a vendor has entered into a contract, that could change - e.g. "any change orders must be approved by $EMPLOYEE_SET".

It's absolutely wild that every W-2 employee can expose their employer to essentially unlimited liability, but AFAIK, that's the truth.

[fragmede]

Well, you see, I had my cat click "submit", so we don't have to pay the bill!

[chromatin]

"Practice is policy"

[pbgcp2026]

No, "This is exactly not it." They are buying your data on a cheap.

[bdavbdav]

As someone who is dealing with the procurement of both in a medium sized it, finops and infosec are exactly it.

[kube-system]

Do you have experience selling to fortune 100 sized organizations?

“I don’t have the budget for this but we have AWS credits” is something teams beg for all the time.

When people beg to give you money, you accept it. Why? It’s not some conspiracy theory. You accept the money because it’s money.

[wallst07]

100% correct... Have EPD or PPA? Reduced spend because of reasons? Well now you can make it up in claude tokens.

[wafflerewire]

This is my day job. I couldn't get access to the Claude Platform even with a business goal justification because of the management overhead while having Anthropic model access with Bedrock.

Through AWS, assuming the underlying data governance is reasonable, this will be a much easier pill to swallow.

[zmmmmm]

yes it sounds like a hack to get access to untracked spend in corporate accounts.

In my org, I have to file a form for reimbursement if I bought a pencil for $0.25 but in AWS? spend varies by +/- $5k per month and nobody even questions it. This will definitely make it trivially easy for me to build on Anthropic's services without even telling anybody vs the hoops I would have to jump to get it paid for another way.

[danvasquez29]

Another selling point has been a guarantee of 1:1 api feature and design parity between Anthropic and this Claude platform. Helps if you have workloads you want to balance between providers.

[siva7]

Nah that's not what's happening here. This service is offered under AWS Marketplace. The only argument is actually probably a shared billing console, and that's where it ends. Won't matter for small companies, small fish, but the for the big pond this means new contracts to check, lawyers and so on. So not really a "revolution" happening. News for startups, yes, but not so much for the big corps or gov.

[debarshri]

It is basically like invoicing through AWS Marketplace.

[fergie]

> I think the idea is that you can launder your team or product AI spend through your AWS account.

Can confirm that this is the one and only reason that we use Claude through AWS

[tecleandor]

Also you can spend your commitment contracts :p

[trollbridge]

Isn’t that capped at 25%?

[tecleandor]

Something like that, but if your boss went too high in your commitment contract, it's nice to have different options to put there...