[nerdjon]

> This is, plain and simple, a tie-in sale of claude code. I am particularly amused by people accepting it as "fair" because in Brazil this is an illegal practice

I am very curious what is particularly illegal about this. On the sales page nowhere do they actually talk about the API https://claude.com/pricing

Now we all know obviously the API is being used because that is how things work, but you are not actually paying a subscription for the API. You are paying for access to Claude Code.

Is it also illegal that if you pay for Playstation Plus that you can't play those games on an Xbox?

Is it illegal that you can't use third party netflix apps?

I really don't want to defend and AI company here but this is perfectly normal. In no other situation would we expect access to the API, the only reason this is considered different is because they also have a different service that gives access to the API. But that is irrelevant.

[jltsiren]

It's basically the difference between pro-market capitalism and pro-business capitalism. The value to the society comes from competition in the market and from the businesses' ability to choose freely how they do business. When those two goals are in conflict, which one should be prioritized?

Anthropic provides an API third-party clients can use. The pro-market position is that the API must be available at every pricing tier, as the benefits from increased competition outweigh the imposed restrictions to business practices. The pro-business position is that Anthropic must be allowed to choose which tiers can use the API, as the benefits from increased freedom outweigh the reduced competition in the market.

[wasfgwp]

So if Claude code didn’t communicate with Anthropic’s server using a well defined public api but some obscure undocumented binary format it would be fine?

Or should every app/service be required to expose documented APIs?

[nerdjon]

Like I mentioned somewhere else I can see why some people think they are entitled to do this and I also fully understand wanting to do it from a cost standpoint.

While I do personally disagree with thinking that you should be able to do this when it was never sold in that way, at the end of the day as a customer you can choose if you want to use the product in the way that they are saying or use something else if you don’t want to support that model.

However the person I was responding too brought up legality which is a very different discussion.

[CuriouslyC]

Imagine if video service came with a free TV that watched you, and was really opinionated about what you watch, and you could only watch your videos on the creeper TV.

[nerdjon]

Then I would not use it because it does not work the way I want it to work...

But if that is the service they are making and they are clear about what it is when you sign up... That does not make it illegal.

I can see why people think they should be entitled to do this, but it does not align with how they are selling the service or how many other companies sell services. In most situations you don't get unlimited access to the individual components of how a service works (the API), you are expected to use the service (in this case Claude Code) directly.

[joombaga]

The Telly comes with a second screen for ads that you're not allowed to shut off. https://www.telly.com/

[pocksuppet]

Video service does work like that. They call it DRM.

[wasfgwp]

I can’t was Netflix on Amazon’s streaming app or the other way around? So yeah, its the same

Anthropic isn’t handing out free PCs or forcing people to use them.

[smileysteve]

I think you just described American cable boxes... Except they charge us a monthly fee and an additional monthly fee for the box.

Or any smart tv with free ip tv.

[Reddit_MLP2]

Is that not most if not all smart TVs today? Basically nearly every TV made and sold right now?