Why? A few times in this thread I hear people saying "they shouldn't have done this" or something similar but not given any reason why.
Listing features you like of another product isn't a reason they shouldn't have done it. It's absolutely not embarrassing, and if anything it's embarrassing they didn't catch and do it sooner.
Because the value proposition that has people pay Anthropic is that it's the best LLM-coding tool around. When you're competing on "we can ban you from using the model we use with the same rate limits we use" everyone knows you have failed to do so.
They might or might not currently have the best coding LLM - but they're admitting that whatever moat they thought they were building with claude code is worthless. The best LLM meanwhile seems to change every few months.
They're clearly within their rights to do this, but it's also clearly embarrassing and calls into question the future of their business.
Best coding tool is what makes users use something, a good model is just a component of that.
I don't think "we have the current best model for coding" is a particularly good business proposition - even assuming it's true. Staying there looks like it's going to be a matter of throwing unsustainable amounts of money at training forever to stay ahead of the competition.
Meanwhile the coding tool part looks like it could actually be sticky. People get attached to UIs. People are more effective in the UIs they are experienced with. There's a plausible story that codeveloping the UI and model could result in a better model for that purpose (because it's fine tuned on the UIs interactions).
And independently "Claude Code" being the best coding tool around was great for brand recognition. "Open Code with the Opus 4.5 backend - no not the Claude subscription you can't use that - the API" won't be.
I think it's reasonable to state that at the moment Opus 4.5 is the best coding model. Definitely debatable, but at least I don't think it controversial to argue that, so we'll start there.
They offer the best* model at cost via an API (likely not actually at cost, but let's assume it is). They also will subsidize that cost for people who use their tool. What benefit do they get or why would a company want to subsidize the cost of people using another tool?
> I don't think "we have the current best model for coding" is a particularly good business proposition - even assuming it's true. Staying there looks like it's going to be a matter of throwing unsustainable amounts of money at training forever to stay ahead of the competition.
I happen to agree - to mee it seems tenuous having a business solely based on having the best model, but that's what the industry is trying to find out. Things change so quickly it's hard to predict 2 years out. Maybe they are first to reach XYZ tech that gives them a strong long term position.
> Meanwhile the coding tool part looks like it could actually be sticky. People get attached to UIs. People are more effective in the UIs they are experienced with.
I agree, but it doesn't seem like that's their m.o. If anything the opposite they aren't trying to get people locked into their tooling. They made MCPs a standard so all agents could adopt. I could be wrong, but thought they also did something similar with /scripts or something else. If you wanted to lock people in you'd have people build an ecosystem of useful tooling and make it not compatible with other agents, but they (to my eyes) have been continuously putting things into the community.
So my general view of them is that they feel they have a vision with business model that doesn't require locking people into their tooling ecosystem. But they're still a business so don't gain from subsidizing people to use other tools. If people want their models in other tools use the "at-cost" APIs - why would they subsidize you to use someone else's tool?
There's just not that much IP in a UI like that. Every day we get articles on here that you can make an agent in 200 LOCs, Yegge's gas town in 2 weeks, etc. Training the model is the hard part, and what justifies a large valuation (350B for anthropic, c.f. 7B for jetbrains).
It is embarrassing to restrict an open source tool that is (IMO) a strictly and very superior piece of software from using your model. It is not immoral, like I said, because it's clearly against the ToC; but it's not like OC is stealing anything from Anthropic by existing. It's the same subscription, same usage.
Obviously, I have no idea what's going on internally. But it appears to be an issue of vanity rather than financials or theft. I don't think Anthropic is suffering harm from OC's "login" method; the correct response is to figure out why this other tool is better than yours and create better software. Shutting down the other tool, if that's what's in fact happening, is what is embarrassing.
> It is embarrassing to restrict an open source tool that is (IMO) a strictly and very superior piece of software from using your model.
> Shutting down the other tool, if that's what's in fact happening, is what is embarrassing.
To rephrase it different as I feel my question didn't land. It's clear to me that you think it's embarrassing. And it's clear what you think is embarrassing. I'm trying to understand why you think it's embarrassing. I don't think it is at all.
Your statements above are simply saying "X is embarrassing because it's embarrassing". Yes I hear that you think it's embarrassing but I don't think it is at all. Do you have a reason you can give why you think it's embarrassing? I think it's very wise and pretty standard to not subsidize people who aren't using your tool.
I'm willing to consider arguments differently, but I'm not hearing one. Other than "it just is because it is".
If your value proposition is: do X, and then you have to take action against an open source competitor for doing X better, that shows that you were beaten at the thing you tried very hard at, by people with way fewer resources.
The competitor is not "doing X better"; it's more complicated than that.
CC isn't just the TUI tool. It's also the LLM behind it. OC may have built a better TUI tool, but it's useless without an LLM behind it. Anthropic is certainly within their rights to tell people they can only integrate their models certain ways.
And as for why this isn't embarrassing, consider that OC can focus 100% of their efforts on their coding tool. Anthropic has a lot of other balls in the air, and must do so to remain relevant and competitive. They're just not comparable businesses.
> CC isn't just the TUI tool. It's also the LLM behind it.
No, Claude Code is literally the TUI tool. The LLMs behind are the models. You can use different models within the same TUI tool, even CC allows that, regardless of the restriction of only using their models (because they chose to do that).
> consider that OC can focus 100% of their efforts on their coding tool.
And they have billions of dollars to hire full teams of developers to focus on it. Yet they don't.
They want to give Claude Code an advantage because they don't want to invest as much in it and still "win", while they're in a position to do so. This is very similar to Apple forcing developers to use their apps because they can, not because it's better. With the caveat that Anthropic doesn't have a consolidated monopoly like Apple.
Can they do that? Yes.
Should they do that? It's a matter of opinion. I think it's a bad move.
Is it embarrassing? Yes. It shows they're admitting their solution is worse and changing the rules of the game to tilt it in their favor while offering an inferior product. They essentially don't want to compete, they want to force people to use their solution due to pricing, not the quality of their product.
Claude Code is more than the TUI, it's the prompts, the agentic loop, and tools, all made to cooperate well with the LLM powering it. If you use Claude Code over a longer period of time you'll notice Anthropic changing the tooling and prompts underneath it to make it work better. By now, the model is tuned to their prompts, tools etc.
Why do you like or dislike Diet Coke? At some point, saying what I think is embarrassing is equivalent to saying why.
But, to accept your good faith olive branch, one more go: AI is a space full of grift and real potential. Anthropic's pitch is that the potential is really real. So real, in fact, that it will alter what it means to write software.
It's a big claim. But a simple way to validate it would be to see if Anthropic themselves are producing more or higher quality software than the rest of the industry. If they aren't, something smells. The makers of the tool, and such a well funded and staffed company, should be the best at using it. And, well, Claude Code sucks. It's a buggy mess.
Opencode, on the other hand, is not a buggy mess. It is one of the finest pieces of software I've used in a long time, and I don't mean "for a TUI". And they started writing it after CC was launched. So, to finally answer your question: Opencode is a competitor in a way that brings to question Anthropic's very innermost claim, the transformative nature of AI. I find it embarrassing to answer this question-of-sorts by limply nicking the competitor, rather than using their existence as a call for self improvement. And, Christ, OC is open. It's open source. Anthropic could, at any time, go read the code and do the engineering to make CC just as good. It is embarrassing to be beaten at your own game and then take away the ball.
(If that is what is happening. Of course, this could be a misunderstanding, or a careless push to production, or any number of benign things. But those are uninteresting, so let's assume for the sake of argument that it was intentional).
Thanks, while we in the end may not agree - I do feel I understand your thinking now. Also agreed, we've probably reached the fruitful end of this discussion and this will be my last reply on it. I'll explain my thoughts similarly as you.
To me it seems more akin to someone saying "I'm launching a restaurant. I'll give you a free meal if you come and give me feedback on the dish, the decor, service...". This happens for a bit, then after a while people start coming in taking the free plate and going and eating it at a different restaurant.
To me it seems pretty reasonable to say "If you're taking the free meal you have to eat it here and give feedback".
That said, I do acknowledge you see it very differently and given how you see it I understand why you feel it's embarrassing.
As a user it is because I can no longer use the subscription with the greater tooling ecosystem.
As for Anthropic, they might not want to do this as they may lose users who decide to use another provider, since without the cost benefit of the subscription it doesn't make sense to stay with them and also be locked into their tooling.
No one said it was complicated, and you might be imagining that I care more than I do. However if you can't understand why having a feature of a paid product removed is dissatisfying, then I cannot help you understand any further.
I am surprised that anyone would think the "product" is the web interface and cli tool though, the product is very clearly the model. The difference in all options is merely how you access it.
Feature, attribute, loophole. I really doubt we fundamentally disagree on the situation here. You can use your empathy to understand why people are disappointed, and I will pretend such a detail oriented thread has made me feel content. Anthropic can do what they want, it's their service.
The Claude plans allow you to send a number of messages to Anthropic models in a specific interval without incurring any extra costs. From Anthropic's "About Claude's Max Plan Usage" page:
> The number of messages you can send per session will vary based on the length of your messages, including the size of files you attach, the length of current conversation, and the model or feature you use. Your session-based usage limit will reset every five hours. If your conversations are relatively short and use a less compute-intensive model, with the Max plan at 5x more usage, you can expect to send at least 225 messages every five hours, and with the Max plan at 20x more usage, at least 900 messages every five hours, often more depending on message length, conversation length, and Claude's current capacity.
So it's not a "Claude Code" subscription, it's a "Claude" subscription.
The only piece of information that might suggest that there are any restrictions to using your subscription to access the models is the part of the Pro plan description that says "Access Claude Code on the web and in your terminal" and the Max plan description that says "Everything in Pro".
It is embarrassing, because it means they’re afraid of competition. If CC was so great, at least a fraction of they sell it, they wouldn’t need to do it.
Why? A few times in this thread I hear people saying "they shouldn't have done this" or something similar but not given any reason why.
Listing features you like of another product isn't a reason they shouldn't have done it. It's absolutely not embarrassing, and if anything it's embarrassing they didn't catch and do it sooner.