Comment by anon373839
25 days ago
> protect their investment
Viewed another way, the preferential pricing they're giving to Claude Code (and only Claude Code) is anticompetitive behavior that may be illegal.
25 days ago
> protect their investment
Viewed another way, the preferential pricing they're giving to Claude Code (and only Claude Code) is anticompetitive behavior that may be illegal.
This is a misunderstanding of the regulations.
They’re not obligated to give other companies access to their services at a discounted rate.
They may however be obligated to not give customers access to their services at a discounted rate either - predatory pricing is at least some of the time and in some jurisdictions illegal.
Predatory pricing? They have a public API that anyone can use for a public rate. There is no predatory pricing here.
The Claude Code endpoint is a private API. They’re free to control usage of their private API.
6 replies →
Claude code is so successful that they could silence the api to protect the moat.
I’m surprised they didn’t go with the option of offering opus 4.6 to Claude code only.
2 replies →
What makes it predatory?
4 replies →
Are you suggesting Anthropic has a “duty to deal” with anyone who is trying to build competitive products to Claude Code, beyond access to their priced API? I don’t think so. Especially not to a product that’s been breaking ToS.
No, but I think they should. Or anti-trust was enforced through some other means. Or at all really.
Citing the ToS is circular logic. They set the terms and can change them whenever they want!
A regulatory duty to deal is the opposite of setting your own terms. Yes, citing a ToS is acceptable in this scenario. We can throw ToS out if we all believed in duty to deal.
Do other companies have a similar "duty to deal" - for example, if Microsoft or Apple ToS forbid use of open source software with their software? Or if VS Code ToS forbid people from using VS Code to work on a competitor?