[zomglings]

If anyone from Anthropic is reading this, your billing for Claude Code is hostile to your users.

Why doesn’t Claude Code usage count against the same plan that usage of Claude.ai and Claude Desktop are billed against?

I upgraded to the $200/month plan because I really like Claude Code but then was so annoyed to find that this upgrade didn’t even apply to my usage of Claude Code.

So now I’m not using Claude Code so much.

[jdance]

This would put anthropic in the business of minimizing the context to increase profits, same as Cursor and others who cheap out on context and try to RAG etc. Which would quickly make it worse, so I hope they stay on api pricing

Some base usage included in the plan might be a good balance

[zomglings]

You know, I wouldn't mind if they just applied the API pricing after Claude Code ran through the plan limits.

It would definitely get me to use it more.

[twalkz]

I’ve been using codemcp (https://github.com/ezyang/codemcp) to get “most” of the functionality of Claude code (I believe it uses prompts extracted from Claude Code), but using my existing pro plan.

It’s less autonomous, since it’s based on the Claude chat interface, and you need to write “continue” every so often, but it’s nice to save the $$

[zomglings]

Thanks, makes sense that an MCP server that edits files is a workaround to the problem.

[fcoury]

Just tried it and it's indeed very good, thanks for mentioning it! :-)

[dist-epoch]

Claude.ai/Desktop is priced based on average user usage. If you have 1 power user sending 1000 requests per day, and 99 sending 5, many even none, you can afford having a single $10/month plan for everyone to keep things simple.

But every Claude Code user is a 1000 requests per day user, so the economics don't work anymore.

[zomglings]

I would accept a higher-priced plan (which covered both my use of Claude.ai/Claude Desktop AND my use of Claude Code).

Anthropic make it seem like Claude Code is a product categorized like Claude Desktop (usage of which gets billed against your Claude.ai plan). This is how it signs off all its commits:

     Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)

At the very least, this is misleading. It misled me.

Once I had purchased the $200/month plan, I did some reading and quickly realized that I had been too quick to jump to conclusions. It still left me feeling like they had pulled a fast on one me.

[fcoury]

Well, take that into consideration then. Just make it an option. Instead of getting 1000 requests per day with code, you get 100 on the $10/month plan, and then let users decide whether they want to migrate to a higher tier or continue using the API model.

I am not saying Claude should stop making money, I'm just advocating for giving users the value of getting some Code coverage when you migrate from the basic plan to the pro or max.

Does that make sense?

[replwoacause]

Their API billing in general is hostile to users. I switched completely to Gemini for this reason and haven’t looked back.

[fcoury]

I totally agree with this, I would rather have some kind of prediction than using the Claude Code roulette. I would definitely upgrade my plan if I got Claude Code usage included.

[datavirtue]

I don't what you guys are on about but I have been using the free GitHub Copilot in VS Code chats to absolutely crank out new UI features in Vue. All that stuff that makes you groan at the thought of it: more divs, bindings, form validation, a whole new widget...churned out in 30 seconds. Try it live. Works? Keep.

I'm surprised at the complexity and correctness at which it infers from very simple, almost inadequate, prompts.

[zomglings]

They did it!

[cypherpunks01]

Claude Pro and other website/desktop subscription plans are subject to usage limits that would make it very difficult to use for Claude Code.

Claude Code uses the API interface and API pricing, and writes and edits code directly on your machine, this is a level past simply interacting with a separate chat bot. It seems a little disingenuous to say it's "hostile" to users, when the reality is yeah, you do pay a bit more for more reliable usage tier, for a task that requires it. It also shows you exactly how much it's spent at any point.

[fcoury]

> ... usage limits that would make it very difficult to use for Claude Code.

Genuinely interested: how's so?

[zomglings]

The writing of edits and code directly on my machine is something that happens on the client side. I don't see why that usage would be subject to anything but one-time billing or how it puts any strain on Anthropic's infrastructure.

[visarga]

Yeah, tried it for a couple of minutes, $0.31, quickly stopped and moved away.

[ghuntley]

$200/month isn't that much. Folks, I'm hanging around with are spending $100 USD to $500 USD daily as the new norm as a cost of doing business and remaining competitive. That might seem expensive, but it's cheap... https://ghuntley.com/redlining

[oytis]

When should we expect to see the amazing products these super-competitive businesses are developing?

[zomglings]

$100/day seems reasonable as an upper-percentile spend per programmer. $500/day sounds insane.

A 2.5 hour session with Claude Code costs me somewhere between $15 and $20. Taking $20/2.5 hours as the estimate, $100 would buy me 12.5 hours of programming.

[m00dy]

Seriously? That’s wild. What kind of CS field could even handle that kind of daily spend for a bunch of people?

[sbszllr]

All can be true depending on the business/person:

1. My company cannot justify this cost at all.

2. My company can justify this cost but I don't find it useful.

3. My company can justify this cost, and I find it useful.

4. I find it useful, and I can justify the cost for personal use.

5. I find it useful, and I cannot justify the cost for personal use.

That aside -- 200/day/dev for a "nice to have service that sometimes makes my work slightly faster" is much in the majority of the world.