[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?