That phrase isn't the official one. It's "The Max Plan" which "combines Claude Desktop and mobile apps and Claude Code in one subscription".

Yes, so... pretty clearly not OpenCode.

Yeah, exactly.

It’s like saying Netflix is wrong to require an official Netflix client to access their service. Total dud of an argument if you ask me.

Well, they are wrong, and the argument is still a dud.

Netflix would not even exist if you could just freely download all of the media to your computer and play it anytime because of licensing agreements and other factors. So you can think that they are wrong but that's not really rooted in reality or practicality.

That is possible, was always possible, and will continue to be possible, judging by the availability of 4K rips available via piracy.

Can I script and scrape Claude Code to provide the exact same data for consumption by the banned client? (This sounds like an interesting challenge for Claude Code to try...)

Yes they even offer an SDK for it now so "scraping" is not required

Claude Code provides a headless mode that you can do this exact same thing with:

$ claude -p “fix the eslint in file XYZ”

I don't think they are confused. They are simply challenging the assertion that the model should not work with other software. Which is fair because there is a lot of precedent around whether a service can dictate how it must be consumed. It's not a simple answer and there are good reasons for both sides. Whichever path we take will have wide consequences and shape our future in a very distinct way. So it is an important decision, and ultimately up to us, as a society to influence and guide.

"challenging the assertion that the model should not work with other software"

This has nothing to do with "the model". You can use "the models" through the API for anything.

This has to do with access to a specific product being abused to then get low-cost API access for other use cases

How do you draw that conclusion? If Anthropic wants to offer a service at below cost, they seem a lot more justified in restricting how and where they subsidize usage.

Yeah fair, I could've chosen better words. My conclusion is: "I don't want to pay for that", not "they shouldn't be able to do that".

> IDK if Anthropic wants to offer a service at below cost, I don't think they should gate keep which client you access that service over.

Are you going to say why you think they shouldn't? You didn't give a reason.

That seems mutual. They don’t want you to use this service with an arbitrary client and you don’t want to use this service that won’t allow an arbitrary client. So both of you don’t want the relationship. Seems fine.

For my part, I’m fine understanding that bundling allows for discounting and I would prefer to enable that.

> Or in other terms, I won't use a service that locks me into a client I don't like.

Then don't! Or just use the API which doesn't lock you into any client.