Comment by troyvit
15 hours ago
This really speaks to the need to separate the LLM you use and the coding tool that uses it. LLM makers utilizing the SaaS model make money on the tokens you spend whether or not they need them. Tools like aider and opencode (each in their own way) use separate tools build a map of the codebase that they can use to work with code using fewer tokens. When I see posts like this I start to understand why Anthropic now blocks opencode.
We're about to get Claude Code for work and I'm sad about it. There are more efficient ways to do the job.
When you state it like that, I now totally understand why Anthropic have a strong incentive to kick out OpenCode.
OpenCode is incentivized to make a good product that uses your token budget efficiently since it allows you to seamlessly switch between different models.
Anthropic as a model provider on the other hand, is incentivized to exhaust your token budget to keep you hooked. You'll be forced to wait when your usage limits are reached, or pay up for a higher plan if you can't wait to get your fix.
CC, specifically Opus 4.5, is an incredible tool, but Anthropic is handling its distribution the way a drug dealer would.
It's like the very first days of computers at all. IBM supplied both the hardware and the software, and the software did not make the most efficient use of the hardware.
Which was nothing new itself of course. Conflicts of interest didn't begin with computers, or probably even writing.
OpenCode also would be incentivized to do things like having you configure multiple providers and route requests to cheaper providers where possible.
Controlling the coding tool absolutely is a major asset, and will be an even greater asset as the improvements in each model iteration makes it matter less which specific model you're using.
You think after 27 billions invested they're gonna be ethical or want to get their money back as fast as possible?